FAO/NORWAY GOVERNMENT

COOPERATIVE PROGRAMME

GCP/INT/648/NOR
Field Report F-16 (En)

FISHCODE
MANAGEMENT
REPORT OF A BIO-ECONOMIC MODELLING WORKSHOP AND A POLICY
DIALOGUE MEETING ON THE THAI DEMERSAL FISHERIES IN THE GULF OF
THAILAND
HUA HIN, THAILAND
31 MAY - 9 JUNE 2000

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE

UNITED NATIONS
ROME, JUNE 2001

FAO/NORWAY GOVERNMENT
COOPERATIVE PROGRAMME

GCP/INT/648/NOR
Field Report F-16 (En)

FISHCODE
MANAGEMENT
FAO/NORWAY PROGRAMME OF ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR RESPONSIBLE
FISHERIES
SUB-PROGRAMME F: ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES FOR
IMPROVING THE PROVISION OF SCIENTIFIC ADVICE FOR FISHERIES
MANAGEMENT

REPORT OF A BIO-ECONOMIC MODELLING WORKSHOP AND A

POLICY DIALOGUE MEETING ON THE THAI DEMERSAL FISHERIES
IN THE GULF OF THAILAND
HUA HIN, THAILAND
31 MAY - 9 JUNE 2000

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

ROME, JUNE 2001

ii

PREPARATION OF THIS DOCUMENT

This report presents a summary of the proceedings and the main findings of a bio-economic
modelling workshop (31 May-8 June 2000) and a subsequent policy dialogue meeting (9
June) on the Thai demersal fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand. The meetings were held at the
Melia Hua Hin Hotel, Hua Hin, Thailand.
A draft report of the workshop including the first results of the analyses was produced at the
workshop for presentation at the policy dialogue meeting. However, it was realized that
further adjustments would be needed in the BEAM 5 analyses and those were made after the
meeting by Messrs Sparre and Willmann, in consultation with Thai scientists. Siebren
Venema edited the final version of this report.
The references to all parts of the report were combined and placed in the last Appendix (F), in
order to provide easy access.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A large number of people have contributed to the success of the workshop and the policy
dialogue meeting, who cannot all be named here because that would reproduce the list of
participants. There are several people, however, who because of their effort and dedication
have made it possible to hold the workshop and the policy dialogue meeting and the high
quality of their outcomes. They are Mr Pongpat Boonchuwong, Mr Somsak Chullasorn, Dr
Somying Piumsombun and Dr Mala Supongpan, Thai Department of Fisheries, Dr Ruangrai
Tokrisna, Kasetsart University, Mr Per Sparre, Danish Institute for Fisheries Research, Dr
Mahfuzuddin Ahmed and Dr Villy Christensen, ICLARM and Messrs. Veravat Hongskul and
Rolf Willmann, FAO.

iii

FAO/FISHCODE
Report of a bio-economic modelling workshop and a policy dialogue meeting on the
Thai demersal fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand held at Hua Hin, Thailand, 31 May - 9
June 2000.
FAO/Norway Programme of assistance to developing countries for the implementation
of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. (FISHCODE). Sub-programme F:
Assistance to developing countries for improving the provision of scientific advice for
fisheries management.
FI: GCP/INT/648/NOR: Field Report F-16 (En). Rome, FAO.104p.
SUMMARY
Similar to many marine fish stocks in Asia and elsewhere in the world, the demersal
resources in the Gulf of Thailand have been subjected to excessive levels of fishing
effort since perhaps as long as two to three decades. This has resulted in a change in
catch composition with a higher share of short-lived species in the catch. The influence
on the value of the catch is not unambiguously negative because several short-lived
species including certain cephalopods and crustaceans fetch good prices in the market.
In general, fish prices showed real increases over the last decade including so-called
trash-fish, i.e. by-catches of small fishes that are converted into fishmeal. The rapid
growth in feed-intensive livestock and shrimp culture production has resulted in a
rapidly growing fishmeal market. However, there is certainly concern about the impact
on the Gulf of Thailand ecosystem and on bio-diversity of a continuation of the very
high levels of mostly indiscriminate fishing effort, especially bottom trawling. While the
immediate effect of a reduction of fishing effort could cause a decline in the quantity
and value of the catch, the long-term benefit is likely to be very large. This is indicated
by the findings of all three types of modelling approaches applied during this workshop,
namely surplus production model (Gordon-Schaefer and Gordon-Fox), age-structured
Thompson & Bell model (BEAM 5) and mass-balance eco-system model (ECOPATH).
The immediate economic benefits arise from a reduction of harvesting costs. These are
comparatively much larger in the trawl and pushnet fisheries because of both higher
capital cost and higher operating costs, especially fuel costs. A reduction of fishing
effort in the order of forty to fifty percent would be required to realize the full resource
rent potential of the Thai demersal fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand. This would
necessitate a major structural adjustment in terms of creating incentives for voluntary
exit from the fishery as well as in terms of putting in place a management regime that
would avoid a re-occurrence of excessive fleet capacity and fishing effort. This could
only be achieved in close partnership with the fishing industry and by making available
considerable financial and technical assistance for the adjustment process, especially in
its early stages, to compensate owners of decommissioned fishing vessels and displaced
crew and to strengthen management capabilities and capacities at all levels including
central and local government agencies and community organizations.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................viii
1

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1

Opening of the Workshop ......................................................................................................... 1

1.2

Objectives and Proceedings of the Workshop........................................................................... 1

1.3

Opening, Objectives and Proceedings of the Policy Dialogue Meeting ................................... 2

PRESENTATIONS AT THE WORKSHOP ............................................................................... 4

2.1

Overview of Regional Fisheries Management in Asia.............................................................. 4

2.2

Development of Demersal Fisheries and the Status of Demersal Resources ............................ 4

2.3

Current and Envisaged Fisheries Management Regulations ..................................................... 5

2.3.1

Trawl fisheries ................................................................................................................... 5

2.3.2

Pushnet fisheries ................................................................................................................ 5

2.3.3

Zoning ................................................................................................................................ 6

INTRODUCTION TO BIO-ECONOMIC MODELLING......................................................... 7

3.1

Gordon-Schaefer Model............................................................................................................ 7

3.2

Backward-bending Supply Curve Analysis .............................................................................. 7

3.3

Past Applications of the Gordon-Schaefer Model to the Gulf of Thailand............................... 8

3.4

Features of BEAM 5 ................................................................................................................. 8

3.5

The ECOPATH Approach ...................................................................................................... 10

3.6

Scope and Limitations of the Models...................................................................................... 10

GORDON-SCHAEFER AND GORDON-FOX MODELS IMPLEMENTATION AND

MODELLING RESULTS............................................................................................................ 13
4.1

Background and rationale........................................................................................................ 13

4.2

Task ......................................................................................................................................... 13

4.3

Model limitations .................................................................................................................... 13

4.4

Model description.................................................................................................................... 13

4.4.1

Gordon-Schaefer model ................................................................................................... 13

4.4.2

Fox model ........................................................................................................................ 14

4.5

Catch and effort data ............................................................................................................... 14

4.6

Economic data......................................................................................................................... 18

4.7

Biological analysis .................................................................................................................. 18

4.8

Economic analysis................................................................................................................... 20

4.9

Implications............................................................................................................................. 21

BEAM 5 IMPLEMENTATION AND MODELLING RESULTS........................................... 23

5.1

Objectives................................................................................................................................ 23

5.2

Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 23

5.3

Tasks ....................................................................................................................................... 23

5.3.1

Model dimensions and biological/technical input data.................................................... 23

5.3.2

Fleet structure used for BEAM 5 for the Gulf of Thailand.............................................. 25

5.3.3

Selection of nine species to represent the demersal resources of the Gulf of Thailand ... 25

5.3.4

Fishing grounds in the Gulf of Thailand .......................................................................... 27

5.3.5

Growth, mortality and natural mortality of the Gulf of Thailand case study................... 27

5.3.6

Catches of the Gulf of Thailand....................................................................................... 29

5.3.7

Fishing mortality of the Gulf of Thailand case study ...................................................... 29

5.3.8

Cod end mesh size, and gear selection parameters .......................................................... 30

5.3.9

Effort, number of vessels and CPUE ............................................................................... 32

5.4

Tuning of BEAM 5 ................................................................................................................. 33

5.5

Economic data......................................................................................................................... 39

5.5.1
5.6

Prices................................................................................................................................ 41

Harvesting costs ...................................................................................................................... 42

5.6.1

Cost of handling............................................................................................................... 42

5.6.2

Operating costs................................................................................................................. 42

5.6.3

Crew share ....................................................................................................................... 43

5.6.4

Fixed costs ....................................................................................................................... 43

5.6.5

Licence fee ....................................................................................................................... 44

5.6.6

Investment costs of new vessel ........................................................................................ 44

5.6.7

Fisheries management costs............................................................................................. 45

5.7

Input parameters for the economic analysis ............................................................................ 46

5.8

Simulation Results .................................................................................................................. 47

ECOPATH-ECOSYSTEM MODELLING OF THE GULF OF THAILAND....................... 52

6.1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 52

6.2

Ecosystem modeling and its relevance for the workshop objectives ...................................... 53

6.3

The Gulf of Thailand ECOPATH Model ................................................................................ 56

6.3.1

Ecosystem groupings and parameters .............................................................................. 56

6.3.2

Fleet composition and landings........................................................................................ 56

6.3.3

CPUEs and biomasses from research vessel surveys (PRAMONG 2 and 9) .................. 57

6.3.4

Landing data for commercial fleets ................................................................................. 58

6.3.5

Effort data from the commercial fleets ............................................................................ 58

6.3.6

Fish prices ........................................................................................................................ 58

6.3.7

Operating costs and profit ................................................................................................ 60

6.3.8

Optimization of fishing effort .......................................................................................... 60

6.4

Approach and results............................................................................................................... 62

6.4.1

Tuning ECOSIM to time series data ................................................................................ 62

6.4.2

Results.............................................................................................................................. 64

vi

COMPARISON OF MODELLING FINDINGS BY THE THREE GROUPS....................... 67

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS AT THE POLICY DIALOGUE MEETING ..................... 70

APPENDIX A LIST OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE BIO-ECONOMIC MODELLING

WORKSHOP ....................................................................................................................................... 72
APPENDIX B LIST OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE POLICY DIALOGUE MEETING ............ 79
APPENDIX C OPENING REMARKS............................................................................................. 83
APPENDIX D AGENDA BIO-ECONOMIC MODELLING WORKSHOP ................................ 85
APPENDIX E AGENDA POLICY DIALOGUE MEETING ........................................................ 88
APPENDIX F ABBREVIATED DESCRIPTION OF BEAM 5..................................................... 89
APPENDIX G REFERENCES.......................................................................................................... 97

vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ADB

Asian Development Bank

BEAM

Bio-Economic Analytical Model (see Appendix F)

DOF

Department of Fisheries of Thailand

Effort

ECOPATH

Model that describes the ecosystems and their interactions in a

fishing area.

ECOSIM

ECOSIM, integrated with ECOPATH. A simulation model for

evaluating the impact of different fishing regimes on the biological
components of ecosystems. ECOSIM also incorporates some
economic variables on fish prices, harvesting costs and discount rate
that allow for the assessment of the economic performance of
alternative management strategies.

ECOSPACE

Module used for spatial analyses under ECOPATH

EXCEL

Spreadsheet program produced by Microsoft

GSM

Gordon-Schaefer Model

HP

Horse Power

MCS

Monitoring, Control and Surveillance

MEY

Maximum Economic Yield

MSY

Maximum Sustainable Yield

NPV

Net Present Value

Recruitment (number of Recruits)

SCF

Standard Conversion Factor

SSB

Spawning Stock Biomass

TC

Total Cost

TR

Total Revenue

Q or q

Catchability coefficient

VPA

Virtual Population Analysis

Yield

viii

INTRODUCTION

A Bio-Economic Analytical Modelling Workshop on the Thai demersal fisheries in the Gulf
of Thailand was held in the Melia Hua Hin Hotel, Hua Hin, Thailand from 31 May to 8 June
2000. The workshop was organized by the Thai Department of Fisheries (DOF) and supported
by Sub-Programme F of the FAO/Norway FISHCODE Project GCP/INT/648/NOR. It also
received support from ICLARM as part of the ICLARM/ADB Project Sustainable
Management of Coastal Fish Stocks in Asia and from FAOs Regular Programme.
The workshop was attended by 35 full-time participants, 17 observers and 5 guests,
comprising DOF scientists and administrators, researchers of Kasetsart University,
representatives of fishermens organizations as well as staff of the Malaysian Department of
Fisheries, Shanghai Fisheries University, Vietnamese Fishery Research Institute and Ministry
of Fisheries, DANIDA Project on Support to Fisheries Development and Management in
Vietnam, SEAFDEC, ICLARM and FAO. A full list of participants is given in Appendix A
and the Agenda in Appendix D.
The workshop was followed by a Policy Dialogue Meeting on 9 June, where the results of the
workshop were presented and discussed with representatives of the fishing industry and
administrators. The Policy Dialogue Meeting was attended by 57 participants, including 33
participants of the workshop. A list of participants is given in Appendix B and the Agenda in
Appendix E.

1.1

OPENING OF THE WORKSHOP

Mr Somsak Chullasorn, Senior Advisor, DOF, opened the workshop on behalf of the
Department of Fisheries and Thai Royal Government. In reference to the serious biological
and economic conditions of the demersal fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand, he noted that the
workshop offered a unique opportunity for the Department of Fisheries to analyze the
biological and socio-economic effects of the transition to more responsible fisheries in an
integrated fashion. This was in line with the Governments commitment to implement the
FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the International Plan of Action on the
Management of Fishing Capacity. The full text of his opening address is reproduced in
Appendix C.

1.2

OBJECTIVES AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE WORKSHOP

The objectives of the workshop were:

1. To investigate the bio-economic and socio-economic effects of a range of fisheries
management measures for the Thai demersal fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand and
2. To enhance national capacity in bio-economic modelling and analysis.
The intended scope of the workshop was to analyse the effects of an eventual implementation
of the following management measures:
a)

Complete ban on pushnet fisheries within 3 years;

b)

Expansion of the non-trawl and non-pushnet zones from 1.6 nm (3 km) to 3 nm;

c)

The impact of current regulations concerning closed seasons and areas;

d)

Increase the minimum mesh size of shrimp trawl gear to 2.5 cm and finfish trawl gear to
3 cm;

e)

Reduction of the numbers of various categories of trawlers;

f)

Increase fishing licence fees.

Due to data constraints and limited time, not all of these measures could be subjected to a
detailed analysis during the workshop. Data constraints prevented an analysis of b) an
expansion of the non-trawl and pushnet zones from 3 km to 3 nm and c) impact of current
regulations concerning closed areas and seasons. Owing to time limitations, some of the
analyses presented in this report could only be completed after the workshop.
The workshop was conducted in English. The agenda is reproduced in Appendix D. The
workshop commenced with the presentation of reviews of fisheries management issues in the
Asian region in general and the Gulf of Thailand in particular. This was followed by
introductory presentations of three modelling approaches, i.e.
a)

Gordon-Schaefer type of model;

b)

BEAM 5 based on a Thompson & Bell biological model and an economic model
adapted from project analysis methodology;

c)

ECOPATH approach to ecological modelling incorporating limited economic analysis.

ECOPATH also incorporated pelagic resources.

The workshop then split into three working groups, one for each model, to apply these
modelling approaches to the demersal fisheries of the Gulf of Thailand.
On the last day of the workshop the results were prepared for presentation to a wider audience
including senior staff of DOF and representatives of fishermens organizations in a Policy
Dialogue Meeting held on 9 June.

1.3

OPENING, OBJECTIVES
MEETING

AND

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

POLICY DIALOGUE

Dr Oopatham Pawaputanon, Deputy Director General of the Thai Department of Fisheries

opened the Policy Dialogue Meeting. This meeting was conducted in Thai.
The objective of the Policy Dialogue Meeting was to present the results of the bio-economic
modelling workshop to representatives of the fishing industry and fisheries administration and
to discuss the policies to be followed with regard to the management of the demersal fisheries
in the Gulf of Thailand on the basis of the indications resulting from the modelling exercise.
The morning session was chaired by Dr Anant Saraya, Director of the Marine Fisheries
Division of the Department of Fisheries.
Dr Somying Piumsombun, Mr Pongpat Boonchuwong and Ms Atchara Vibhasiri presented
salient findings of the bio-economic analyses of the demersal fisheries in the Gulf of
Thailand.
Mr Somsak Chullasorn presented the management issues of the demersal fisheries in the Gulf
of Thailand.

Mr Kumpol Shotepunyo of the Executive Committee of the Thai Fishermens Association,

presented a fishermans point of view on marine fisheries management issues.
The afternoon session was chaired by Mr Somsak Chullasorn, Senior Marine Fisheries
Advisor of the Academic Office of the Department of Fisheries.
Dr Veravat Hongskul, FAO, presented policy options for the management of the demersal
fisheries of the Gulf of Thailand, after which a discussion followed.
The chairman closed the meeting at 16.00h.

PRESENTATIONS AT THE WORKSHOP

2.1

OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN ASIA

Dr. Mahfuzuddin Ahmed, ICLARM, sketched the dramatic changes that have occurred in
Asias fisheries during the last three to four decades and provided a brief expos of the factors
that have contributed to these changes. These included the 1982 United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea and the establishment of EEZs, large technological improvements
increasing dramatically fishing power and efficiency, the globalization and expansion of
markets and changes in the institutional and legal arrangements for fisheries development and
management. Countries in the region generally face the problem of reconciling the limits of
their natural resources including fishery resources with the need to generate economic growth
and provide remunerative employment for a growing population, especially in coastal areas.
After a period of largely open-access regimes prior to the 1970s, countries have attempted to
control and regulate access to fishery resources through mostly centralized State control. In
more recent years, this approach is increasingly complemented, or even replaced, by
decentralized community-based and/or co-management arrangements between the resource
users and government agencies at various administrative levels. Experience with these
innovations in fisheries management is still limited, but there is increasing evidence that decentralized and co-management approaches are better suited for the management of the
widely dispersed small-scale fisheries that are typical for coastal fisheries in Asia.
In concluding his presentation, Dr Ahmed referred to the roles and importance of novel
instruments and approaches to fisheries management including the Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries, the precautionary approach and eco-labeling and certification.

2.2

DEVELOPMENT OF DEMERSAL FISHERIES

DEMERSAL RESOURCES

AND THE

STATUS

OF

Dr Mala Supongpan presented the developments in the Thai demersal fisheries in the Gulf of
Thailand over the last four decades. The most significant technological innovation was the
introduction of trawling in the early 1960s. This technology was highly efficient and
profitable and rapidly attracted investments in new and larger-sized boats. Within a period of
just about 15 years, the number of trawlers and fishing effort had increased to a level to take
the maximum sustainable yield on an average over all species groups. Thus already in the late
1970s, the demersal resources of the Gulf of Thailand were considered fully exploited. As
fishing capacity and effort continued to further augment driven by increasing fish prices and
attractive returns to investors, especially the longer-lived species became severely depleted
and were partly replaced by small and fast-growing species. As a consequence, the proportion
of what is lumped together as trash fish in the fishery statistics has steadily increased and
has attained a share of about 60 percent. A significant part of this trash fish is made up of
juveniles of commercially important species that could produce a more valuable catch if the
juveniles were given time to grow to adulthood.
Thai fisheries research is blessed with the probably unique feature that one and the same type
of research vessel has undertaken trawling surveys, using trawl gear of the same size and
shape, at regular intervals for a continuous period of nearly forty years. These long time series
data illustrate in a dramatic fashion the massive resources depletion and ecological changes
that have taken place in the Gulf of Thailand during this period. The data show that the catch
4

per unit of effort has decreased about 15-fold from 298 kg per hour in 1961 to some 20 kg per
hour in the late 1990s.

2.3

CURRENT AND ENVISAGED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS

Mr Somsak Chullasorn provided an overview of the current and planned fisheries

management regulations in the Gulf of Thailand. He observed that most current regulations
relate to zoning and closed seasons and mesh size of the fishing gear. The limitation on the
number of trawlers that had been put in place to avoid new additions to the fishing fleet was
later revoked, which led to a significant increase in the number of vessels. Trawling and
pushnetting are prohibited within 1.6 nm (3 km) from the coast and within a perimeter of 400
m from any stationary fishing gear.
Since 1999, fishing by all trawlers and all powered pushnetters exceeding 14 m is prohibited
during the period from 15 February to 15 May in the western Gulf of Thailand covering the
areas of Prachuab Kirikhan, Chumporn, Surat Thani, and Nakhon Sri Thammarat (at Kanom),
except for otterboard trawlers not exceeding 16 m length fishing during night time.
Concerning envisaged future regulations, Mr Somsak Chullasorn referred to the outcome of
the 1999 National Seminar on Future Directions of Thai Marine Fisheries (Department of
Fisheries of Thailand, 1999) that made the following recommendations (a-j) with regard to
trawl and pushnet fisheries and zoning:
2.3.1

Trawl fisheries

a)

Introduce and enforce a minimum mesh size for shrimp trawls of 2.5 cm and for fish
trawls of 3 cm;

b)

Revise legislation to allow for the control of the production and import of fishing gear
in order to prevent the use of destructive fishing gear;

c)

Based on area-specific resources assessments and other factors, the government is to

implement a zoning policy for trawl fisheries;

d)

Increase the licence fees for trawl and other types of fishing gear in accordance with
their efficiency;

e)

Improve the enforcement of a minimum distance of 3 km from shore for trawl fisheries;

2.3.2

Pushnet fisheries

f)

Ban all pushnet fishing within 3 years and through government financial support,
facilitate the shift to other types of fisheries and to other occupations;

g)

Government should allocate and use budgetary resources to buy back pushnet vessels
and to facilitate the change to other types of gear within 3 years;

h)

Government should, as a priority, support the buy-back of pushnet vessels and the
change of fishing gear in provinces where alternative employment opportunities are
good, and provide credit for fishermen who would like to start another business;

2.3.3

Zoning

i)

Extend the coastal fishing zone from 3 km to 3 miles that is reserved for suitable fishing
methods and small fishing boats and where trawls and pushnets are not allowed, and
establish zones for each type of fishing gear taking into account location-specific and
geographic factors;

j)

Establish four zones for the Thai EEZ as follows:

(i)
Up to 3 miles, reserved for subsistence fisheries and for resources
rehabilitation;
(ii)

3-5 miles for medium-scale fisheries, i.e. vessels below 14 m length;

(iii)

5-12 miles for large-scale fishing, i.e. vessels from 14-18 m length;

(iv)

Beyond 12 miles, all vessels with a length above 18 m.

In concluding his presentation, Mr Somsak Chullasorn noted that the principle legislative
framework for management of fisheries, the Fisheries Act of 1947 is outdated and has been
recognized as being inadequate. It was designed primarily to address the problems relating to
inland fisheries. Moreover, the new Constitution of Thailand requires the making of laws for
natural resource exploitation and contains broad principles that impact on drafting of natural
resource management legislation. The Fisheries Act does not reflect these principles because
it was enacted before the Constitution was promulgated.1

1
See also McDorman, T., 2000. Final report on legal advice to Thailand. FISHCODE Field Report C-4, Rome,
FAO, 174p.

INTRODUCTION TO BIO-ECONOMIC MODELLING2

This session provided participants with an introduction of the three different modelling
approaches to be subsequently applied to the demersal fisheries of the Gulf of Thailand. The
session also reviewed some of the earlier applications of the Gordon-Schaefer model to these
fisheries.

3.1

GORDON-SCHAEFER MODEL

Dr Mahfuzuddin Ahmed, ICLARM, commenced his presentation with a brief overview of the
major causes of biological and economic overfishing and the difficulties that countries face in
addressing them. He noted in particular the high exclusion and transaction costs (e.g.
enforcement and information acquisition) and inadequate legal and institutional frameworks
that hamper developing countries efforts to achieve effective fisheries management.
He noted that bio-economic modelling was a tool to better inform fisheries management, both
at the planning and implementation stages as well as to evaluate management performance.
Among the various modelling approaches, the Gordon-Schaefer Model (GSM) has the big
advantage of requiring limited data only, but this advantage comes at the cost of needing to
make some simplifying assumptions. The GSM is a single-species model and therefore, by
necessity, its application to a multi-species and multi-gear fishery would produce only a rough
guidance on desirable fleet size and fishing effort. Nevertheless, the GSM has a great value
for crosschecking the results of other modelling approaches that rely on larger (and perhaps
less robust) data sets and it is well suited for the analysis of single species fisheries.

3.2

BACKWARD-BENDING SUPPLY CURVE ANALYSIS

Dr Rungrai Tokrisna, Kasetsart University, presented Copes model of the backward-bending

supply curve that does not rely on the assumption of fixed output prices, thereby explicitly
including an analysis of the impact of changes in fish demand on optimum harvesting effort.
As against the GSM, Copes model is based on average and marginal costs as functions of
catch rather than functions of fishing effort.
She then made an expos of the economics of alternative management measures including
taxation, total and individual quotas, licensing and other measures and discussed some
pertinent criteria for evaluating management regimes in general.
Regulations should have a fair chance of success, be flexible and should be supported by most
of the fishermen. They should achieve efficiency but take full account of management costs,
impacts on employment, income distribution and political factors that might impinge on the
ability to implement them.

For detailed expositions on bio-economic modelling, the reader may wish to consult the following publications:
Hannesson, R. 1993. Bioeconomic analysis of fisheries. Published by arrangement with FAO by Fishing News
Books and Seijo et al. 1998. Fisheries bioeconomics theory, modelling and management. FAO Fish Tech. Pap.
No. 368. FAO. Rome.

3.3

PAST APPLICATIONS OF THE GORDON-SCHAEFER MODEL TO THE GULF

OF THAILAND

In reference to an analysis by Panayotou and Jetanavanich, Dr Rungrai Tokrisna presented the

results of past applications of the GSM and Copes model to the Thai fisheries in the Gulf of
Thailand.3 The base year for the analyses was 1982 when the total number of standardized
fishing effort units was estimated at 19.2 million (expressed in standard trawling hours). At
that time, the trawl fishery produced a catch of some one million tonnes and yielded an
estimated total profit of 1.5 billion Baht. Given the limitations of the GSM model as
explained above, it was estimated that effort would have had to be reduced by 46% to 10.4
million effort units to produce the maximum economic yield (estimated at 2.7 billion Baht). A
much lower reduction of fishing effort by 18% only would have been required to produce the
maximum sustainable catch estimated at 958 000 tonnes. Irrespective of the limiting
assumptions underlying these estimates, it is notable that fishing effort and fishing capacity
have continued to increase since that time and that catch per unit of effort has further
declined.
As would be expected on theoretical grounds, the required reduction in fishing effort under
the Copes model to produce Maximum Economic Yield (MEY) was with 39% somewhat
less than with the GSM. The reason is that by accounting for the combined benefit of
consumer and producer surplus, the optimal catch is higher. As the GSM assumes fixed
output prices, changes in consumer surplus as a result of changes in fish supply (i.e. landed
catch) are excluded from the analysis. The total combined producer and consumer surplus at
MEY was estimated at 14.2 billion Baht as against 11.5 billion Baht estimated for the
reference year.

3.4

FEATURES OF BEAM 5

Mr Per Sparre, Danish Institute for Fisheries Research and Mr Rolf Willmann, FAO,
introduced the Bio-Economic Analytical Model No. 5 or BEAM 5 model (see also Appendix
F)4. It is a multi-species, multi-fleet dynamic software implementation of a bio-economic
stochastic simulation model. It is the fifth in a series of bio-economic models produced by
FAO aiming at assisting fisheries researchers and managers to generate improved advice for
fisheries management and policy-making. All five models use the Thompson & Bell
biological model, but with large variations in detail and complexity.
BEAM 1 and BEAM 2 are very simple single-species models.
BEAM 3 is a stochastic model that can handle up to four species, but only at one
technological level (i.e. one gear taking several species concurrently).
BEAM 4 is a much more general program that accounts for migration of the animals and
incorporates an integrated assessment of the harvesting and processing sectors.

Panayotou and Jetanavanich 1987. The economics and management of Thai marine fisheries. Manila,
ICLARM. ICLARM Studies and Reviews. No. 14.
4
. For a detailed description of BEAM 5, the reader should consult the following: Sparre P. and R. Willmann. (in
preparation). BEAM 5 - A multi-species, multi-fleet dynamic software implementation of a bio-economic
stochastic simulation model. FAO. Rome.

In BEAM 5 the new key features are as follows:

Non-equilibrium dynamic biological model;

Optional stock-recruitment relationship;

Optional stochastic variability of selected biological parameters;

Dynamic economic model based on the concepts applied in project analysis;

Inclusion of fisheries management costs and analysis of the impact of fisheries

management and fiscal measures on government budget;

Optional modelling of a buy-back or decommissioning scheme with compensation

payments for boat-owners and fishing crew;

Optional behavioural rules of fishing firms governing fishing effort and

investment;

Optional flexibility of ex-vessel prices in response to changes in fish supply (i.e.

landings).

These new features allow the use of BEAM 5 in the analysis of the bio-economic and socioeconomic effects of the transition process from a poorly managed fishery with excessive fleet
sizes, depleted stocks and low or negative returns on investment to a well managed fishery
where stocks are recovering and fleet sizes and fishing effort are being adjusted to desirable
levels. The adjustment process would usually entail certain up-front transition costs for a buyback or decommissioning scheme of redundant fishing vessels and compensation for
displaced crewmembers that would often have to be financed by government. Moreover,
investments may be needed to upgrade the fisheries management capacity at various levels for
improved research, monitoring, control and surveillance and educational and organizational
activities in the promotion of effective co-management arrangements between government
and fishing communities and fishing industry.
BEAM 5 uses the Net Present Value (NPV), i.e. the sum of the discounted future stream of
net benefits (i.e. benefits minus costs) to evaluate the desirability of alternative adjustment
paths and management and fiscal measures. A discount rate (or factor) is applied to the
benefits and costs that arise in the future to account for the fact that a dollar earned (or spent)
today is worth more than a dollar earned (or spent) in a future year. In the evaluation, a
distinction is made between the financial performance of the fishing firms and the
performance of the fishery from a point of view of the economy as a whole.
The financial analysis estimates how well the fishing industry will be doing over a series of
future years. It is based on estimates of the likely revenues and costs of the fishing firms. The
economic analysis, on the other hand, includes certain costs that are usually not paid for by
the fishing firms and are thus excluded from their financial calculations. These include
fisheries management costs such as research, administration and Monitoring, Control and
Surveillance (MCS). Another important difference is that the economic analysis uses shadow
prices of inputs whenever there is a discrepancy between the prices paid by fishing firms or
the government and the economy wide opportunity costs of such inputs.
BEAM 5 also allows an analysis of the impact of the adjustment or transition process on the
governments budget. The fishing industry contributes to the government budget through the
payment of taxes (e.g. on fuel), duties (e.g. on imported equipment) and fishing licence fees.
On the other hand, the government incurs various expenditures in support of the fishing
9

industry including fisheries management costs, subsidies and eventual payments under a buyback programme for vessel decommissioning and compensation of displaced crew.

3.5

THE ECOPATH APPROACH

Dr Villy Christensen, ICLARM, introduced the ECOPATH approach to ecological modelling.

The first ECOPATH program was developed at ICLARM from the original ECOPATH
model developed by J. Polovina, National Marine Fisheries Service, Hawaii, USA.
Subsequently ECOPATH with ECOSIM, a Windows-based software, was developed jointly
by ICLARM and the Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Canada. ECOPATH
with ECOSIM is an approach for construction and analysis of mass-balance models and
feeding interactions or nutrient flows in ecosystems.
The software is designed to help construct a (simple or complex) model of the trophic flows
in an ecosystem, to analyse the system and to study interactions in the system. Its successful
application represents a move towards sustainable management of ecosystems. Aquatic
ecosystems are emphasized because the approach presented initially was applied to marine
and freshwater ecosystems, but it has also been applied to a number of terrestrial ecosystems,
such as farming systems, as can be seen in the publications list and published ECOPATH
models.
Once an ECOPATH model has been built it can be used directly for simulation modelling
using the ECOSIM model. ECOSIM, fully integrated with ECOPATH, is a relatively simple
simulation model for evaluating the impact of different fishing regimes on the biological
components of ecosystems. ECOSIM also incorporates some economic variables on fish
prices, harvesting costs and discount rate that allow for the assessment of the economic
performance of alternative management strategies.
One interesting, if somewhat unexpected aspect of the availability of ECOSIM in
combination with ECOPATH is that ECOPATH parameterizations can be evaluated quickly
in terms of the dynamics they imply. For example, one can quickly identify over-aggregated
groups, whose ability to consume a wide range of preys enables them, through this unfair
competition, to drive other groups into extinction.

3.6

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE MODELS

The workshop draws on three different model types in order to address the questions posed in
the objectives. This is not to find the right model for the workshop purpose, but because the
models have different strengths and weaknesses and they address different aspects: effort,
ecology and economy. It is also reflective of the fact that modelling is cheap the expensive
part is to get the data required for the analyses, therefore the more use can be made of
expensive data, the better (less uncertain) will be the results when it comes to addressing the
questions at hand for the management of the demersal fisheries of the Gulf of Thailand.
Models should be seen as simplifications of reality. Adding complexity may, as is well known
from multiple regression analysis, lead to a better data fit but may also decrease a models
capability for making predictions. Therefore, it is often advisable to use as simple a model as
possible to capture the essence of the challenges posed. There are several angles to this:
Firstly, one should not generally expect that the construction of a very detailed model aimed
at addressing all issues related to bio-economic (including ecological, economical and social)

10

aspects of the fisheries of the Gulf of Thailand would be feasible or desirable. Even if such a
model could be constructed, there would be no certainty that its predictions would be
reasonable. Therefore, the direction taken by this workshop has been to utilize several models,
which show some overlap in the predictions they make, but which are based on independent
approaches for obtaining their results. If such different models come up with similar results,
there is greater confidence that the results are robust. If not, the properties of the models can
be investigated in search of explanations for the differences.
Some aspects of the three models applied at the workshop are described in Table 3.1. It is
apparent that each of the models contributes towards addressing the workshops objectives,
and that they together encompass the chief bio-economic, social and ecological aspects of
interest for management of the demersal fisheries of the Gulf of Thailand.

11

Table 3.1. Overview of the three models used in the bio-economics workshop on the Gulf
of Thailand, Hua Hin, Thailand, May 2000*
Gordon-Schaefer &
Fox models

ECOPATH with
ECOSIM

BEAM 5

Surplus production

Ecological

Bio-economic

Equilibrium

Dynamic

Dynamic

Single

Multiple (45 here,

demersal and pelagic)

Multiple (10 here, demersal

only)

Fish population
dynamics

Not included

Included

Included

Biological
interactions

Not included

Included

Not included

No of fleets

Single

Multiple (6 here)

Multiple (8 here)

Cost function
relation to effort

Linear

Linear

Non-linear

Model type
Model assumptions
Number of biological
resources

Cost function
relation to catch

Non-linear

Fisheries
management costs

Not included

Not included

Included

Fleet adjustment
costs

Not included

Not included

Included

Information utilized
for present
application * (TS
indicates a time
series, often 19731997)

Research vessel CPUE Catch by fleet (recent av.)

(TS)
Effort by fleet (recent av.)
Total catch (TS)
Catch
by
fleet
(TS)
Mortality rates
Total value of catch
Effort by fleet (TS)
(TS)
Prices by fleet
Total effort (TS)

Prices by fleet

Costs by fleet

Costs by fleet

Fisheries management costs

Mortality rates

Fleet adjustment costs

Consumption rates
Diet compositions
Spatial model

Single area

Predictions

catches, Financial and economic net

Catch as a function of Biomasses,
and profit as a function present value of different
fishing effort
adjustment paths
of fishing effort
MSY
MEY
Yield at open access

Multiple areas (5 here)

Multiple areas (2 here)

Spatial distribution of
resources and effort

Issues addressed (see pages 1 and 2):

a-Pushnet fishery

NO

YES

YES

b-No-trawl zone

NO

YES

YES

c-Season and area

NO

YES

YES

d-Mesh size

NO

Yes, but indirectly

YES

e-Fleet reductions

YES

YES

YES

f-License fees

NO

NO

YES

12

GORDON-SCHAEFER AND GORDON-FOX MODELS

IMPLEMENTATION AND MODELLING RESULTS5

4.1

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

After the introduction of commercial trawl fishing in Thailand, in the early sixties, demersal
fisheries have become a major contributor to domestic fish supply, producing the bulk of the
animal protein supply of the nation. In addition, demersal fisheries are a major source of
foreign exchange earnings. Due to their great economic contribution and importance for food
security the demersal fisheries require to be managed well.

4.2

TASK

The Working Group had the task to use the Gordon-Schaefer surplus production model:
1. To determine the optimum level of catch and effort;
2. To estimate net benefits (rent and consumer surplus if possible) from the fishery, and
3. To provide management advice at the aggregate and macro-level, while specific measures
on vessel, gear and species can be based on other models such as BEAM 5.

4.3

MODEL LIMITATIONS

The original model was developed as a single stock model. It assumes stable environmental
conditions. In this workshop the working group used the model for a multi-species/multi-gear
fishery.
For the economic framework static analysis is used to determine the optimum level of fishing
effort, where resource rent is maximized in each time period. Besides that, a fixed price model
and a linear cost function were used.

4.4

MODEL DESCRIPTION

The Gordon-Schaefer model and the Fox model were applied to estimate MSY and MEY. For
these models the basic formulas are as follows:
4.4.1

Gordon-Schaefer model
Y = f (E)

(1)

Y = qEk (1-qE/r)

(2)

The working group comprised of the following members:

Mahfuzuddin Ahmed, Pichaya Angsukiathavorn, Patchareenart Charoenwuttichai, Steen Christensen,
Waraporn Dechboon, Pormsak Phungmarg, Somying Piumsombun, Frank Riget, Bing Santos, Heiko
Seilert, Chu Tien Vinh, Nguyen Viet Vinh.
13

Functional form used:

Y = aE - bE2

where

Y = catch
E = effort (standardized)
q = catchability coefficient
r = intrinsic growth rate
k = maximum carrying capacity

4.4.2

Fox model
Y = E*ea+bE

where

4.5

(3)

Y = catch
E = effort (standardized)
a, b = estimate parameters

CATCH AND EFFORT DATA

Data on total catches and total effort were available for the period 1973-1997 for the
following fleets:
Otterboard Trawlers (OBT), sizes <14m, 14-18 m and 18-25m;
Pair Trawlers (PT), sizes <14 m, 14-18 m and 18-25 m;
PushNetters (PN) (sometimes divided into small and medium/large);
Beam Trawlers (BT)
As indicated in Figures 4.1a to c, a clear declining trend in CPUE with increasing effort can
be observed only for medium and large otterboard trawlers (14-18 m and 18-25 m) and for
large pair trawlers (18-25 m). Since experimental survey data from the same period indicate a
decreasing trend in stock abundance, measured as a decrease in CPUE, which is not observed
in many of the commercial fleets it may be assumed that there has been an increase in
catchability of those fleets. As the catchability of the research vessel is assumed to have
remained the same during the entire time period in question, it was decided to use the research
vessel as the reference vessel and to standardise the total annual fishing effort of each fleet in
research vessel units.
For each fleet the standardised fishing effort by year was calculated by multiplying the total
effort of the fleet in a given year with the ratio between the corresponding commercial CPUE
and the CPUE of the survey vessel. However, experimental surveys were not carried out in
1990, 1992, 1994 and 1996 and for these years the mean CPUE of the research vessel in the
preceding and the following years were used as an estimate of CPUE. Survey CPUE data
were also not available for 1997 and in that particular case a preliminary estimate of 20
kg/hour was applied.
As indicated in Figure 4.2 the total (research vessel) standardised fishing effort increased
from 10-15 million hours in the period 1973 to 1986 to 25-35 million hours in the period 1989
to 1997. This steep increase in fishing pressure may be the reason for the decline in total
catches observed in the late 1980s.

14

Otter trawl <14m

0.04

CPUE

0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0

2000000

4000000

6000000

8000000

10000000

Effort

CPUE

Otter trawl 14-18m

0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0

71

2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 7000000 8000000

Effort

Otter trawl 18-25m

0.2

CPUE

0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0

1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000

Effort

Figure 4.1a Plots of CPUE (tonnes/hour) versus effort (hours) for otterboardtrawlers

15

Pair trawler <14 m

0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0

50000

100000

150000

200000

Pair trawl 14-18m

0.2

CPUE

0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

Effort

Pair trawl 18-25m

0.5
75

CPUE

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

200000 400000 600000 800000 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06

Effort

Figure 4.1b Plots of CPUE (tonnes/hour) versus effort (hours) for pair trawlers

16

Pushnet
0.05
0.045
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0

82

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

Beam trawl
0.03
81

0.025
83

0.02

80

0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

Figure 4.1c Plots of CPUE (tonnes/hour) versus effort (hours) for pushnetters and beam
trawls

17

Catch and RV-standard Effort

1200000

45000000
40000000
35000000
30000000
25000000
20000000
15000000
10000000
5000000
0

1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000

19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97

Figure 4.2 Time series of standardised effort (broken line - left y-axis) and catch (solid
line - right y-axis)

4.6

ECONOMIC DATA

A fixed price was used for the fish, calculated as the average weighted price for 1998. The
cost data for 1998 were determined from fixed costs and variable costs calculated as an
average cost per unit of standardized effort.
A variable price model to estimate consumer surplus was not available during the workshop.
Such model would require data on prices of fish, substitute prices and disposable income to
estimate a demand function.

4.7

BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

Catch and effort data over the period 1973 to 1997 from OBT <14 m, 14-18 m, 18-25 m; PT
<14 m, 14-18 m, 18-25 m; PN and BT were applied to the Gordon-Schaefer model (Figure
4.3) and Fox model (Figure 4.4).

CPUE

Gordon-Schaefer
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0

y = -2E-09x + 0.0867
R2 = 0.9027
0

10000000

20000000

30000000

40000000

50000000

Effort

Figure 4.3 Total CPUE versus total standardised effort

18

Fox
0

ln(CPUE)

-1

10000000

20000000

30000000

-2

40000000

50000000

y = -4E-08x - 2.2074
R2 = 0.8903

-3
-4
-5
Effort

Figure 4.4 Log-transformed total CPUE versus total standardised effort

The constants (a and b) of the Fox model (Yield = Effort*ea+b*Effort) were estimated by a linear
regression with logarithmically transformed CPUE as the dependent variable (y) and total
standardised effort as the independent variable (x). The result of the regression is indicated in
Figure 4.4. Fishing effort at maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is estimated as 1/b.
Figure 4.5 shows the Gordon-Schaefer and Fox equilibrium yield curves and the observed
total yield and total standardised effort during the time period. The fishing efforts at
maximum sustainable yield are very similar for both models. However, the Gordon-Schaefer
model indicates a higher level of MSY than the Fox model.
Table 4.1 Results of the application of Gordon-Schaefer and Fox models
Gordon-Schaefer
Fox

Effort at MSY (million hours)

23.9
23.3

MSY (tonnes)
1,036,428
944,632

It may be noted that all actual effort observations from the 1990s, represented by the dots on
the right side of the curve, are well beyond the effort at MSY (23.9 or 23.3 million hours).
1200000
Actual
1000000

Fox

800000
Yield (tons)
600000
Gordon-Schaefer

400000
200000
0
0

10000000

20000000 30000000
Effort (hours)

40000000

50000000

Figure 4.5 Gordon-Schaefer and Fox equilibrium yield curves

19

4.8

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

On the economics side, total fishery cost and total revenue are relevant. The economic
objective is to maximize resource rent from the fishery. In open access fisheries, fishermen
will increase their fishing effort as long as that is profitable. The open access equilibrium (i.e.
no further entries in the fishery) occurs where total revenue (TR) equals total cost (TC) and
hence resource rent becomes zero. In mathematical terms:
At open access equilibrium:

Total Revenue = Total Cost

or

TR = TC
PY(E) = CE
P is fixed price
E = Effort; Y = Yield
C = average cost per one unit of fishing effort.

where

At maximum economic yield:

Marginal Revenue = Marginal Cost
dTR/dE = dTC/dE
In order to reach the economic objective the fishing effort must be cut down to the point
where marginal cost is equal to marginal revenue. The society will gain and be better off in
the sense that there is at that point an efficient use of both the fish resources and all factors of
production (i.e. input use labour, capital asset etc.).
25000
Bath (million)
20000

Bio-Economic models
Profit at MEY
Fox

15000

7246

10000

Cost curve

7232

Schaefer

5000
0
0

10000000

20000000
30000000
Effort (hours)

40000000

50000000

Figure 4.6 Gordon-Schaefer and Fox curves for revenue over standardized effort
derived from 1973 - 1997 demersal fisheries data and the resulting maxima for profits at
MEY for given constant costs for standard effort
At maximum economic yield the distance between the yield or revenue curve (Schaefer or
Fox) and the cost curve is at its maximum, as indicated in Figure 4.6 by one vertical line for
each model. From the results shown in Figure 4.6 and in Table 4.1 the optimum levels of
effort and catch derived from the Gordon-Schaefer and Fox models are not significantly
different.
The Gordon-Schaefer model indicates a maximum resource rent of 7,246 million Baht at an
optimum effort level of 14.48 million hours and a related catch of 875 thousand tonnes. The

20

Table 4.2 Gordon-Schaefer and Fox model results for the MSY, MEY and open access
situation in 1998
MSY
Schaefer
23.89

Schaefer

Fox

14.48

11.48

1,036.43 944.63

875.37

772.14

4,178

Resource rent
(million Baht)
Note:

Fox

Open access

23.35

Effort
(million hours)
Catch
(thousand tonnes)

MEY

2,787

average price/kg = 19.05 Baht;

Schaefer

Actual

Fox

28.95

(1997)

27.27

29.92

990.00 932.69

776.14

7,245.92 7,231.88

-809.15

cost/unit of effort = 651.44 Baht

Fox model indicates a maximum resource rent of 7,232 million Baht at an optimum effort
level of 11.48 million hours and a related catch of 772 thousand tonnes.
The open access equilibrium is reached when the resource rent is 0, which is the point where
the cost curve intersects the revenue curve. The related effort and catch are given in the third
column (open access) of Table 4.2. The actual situation (column four) lies beyond the open
access equilibrium, resulting in a negative resource rent of 809 million Baht.

4.9

IMPLICATIONS

Table 4.3 shows the number of vessels by gear type that need to be phased out, based on the
proportional reduction of standardized fishing effort to reach optimum fishing effort. The
impact on unemployment of crew (if they are not immediately reemployed elsewhere) is
44,972 people according to the Gordon-Schaefer model and 53,447 people in the Fox model.
Table 4.3 Reduction of fishing fleet and crew based on Gordon-Schaefer and Fox models
Vessel Boat Number Present Optimum number Number of boats
to be removed
type length of crew number of boats at MEY
(m) per boat of boats
from the fisheries

Number of crew
having to leave
fisheries

Schaefer

Fox

Schaefer

Fox

Schaefer

Fox

<14

1,970

922

724

1,048

1,246

4,193

4,983

14-18

2,165

1,013

796

1,152

1,369

9,216

10,952

18-25

16

1,761

824

647

937

1,114

14,992

17,817

<14

10

29

14

11

15

18

154

183

14-18

19

466

218

171

248

295

4,711

5,599

18-25

19

1,051

492

386

559

665

10,625

12,627

PN

2.3

771

361

283

410

488

944

1,121

BT

1.7

152

71

56

81

96

137

163

8,365

3,915

3,074

4,450

5,291

44,972

53,447

OBT

PT

Total

21

Table 4.4 shows the optimum number of vessels and the number that would need to be
removed by gear type, given that pushnetting is banned and the remaining standardized
fishing effort is allocated proportionally to the existing number of vessels. The impact on
employment would be grave: a reduction of 42,931 crew in the Gordon-Schaefer model and
51,542 crew in the Fox model, about 2,000 less than without the ban on pushnets.
Table 4.4 Reduction of fishing fleet and crew based on Gordon-Schaefer and Fox models
in case of a ban on pushnet fisheries
Vessel Boat Number Present
Optimum
Number of boats to Number of crew
type length of crew number number of boats be removed from having to leave
per
(m)
of boats
at MEY
the fisheries
fisheries
boat
Schaefer Fox Schaefer
Fox
Schaefer Fox
<14

1,970

990

785

980

1,185

3,919

4,739

14-18

2,165

1,088

863

1,077

1,302

8,615

10,417

18-25

16

1,761

885

702

876

1,059

14,014

16,947

<14

10

29

15

12

14

17

144

174

14-18

19

466

234

186

232

280

4,404

5,325

18-25

19

1,051

528

419

523

632

9,932

12,011

PN

2.3

771

771

771

1,773

1,773

BT

1.7

152

76

61

76

91

129

155

8,365

3,816

3,028

4,549

5,337

42,931

51,542

OBT

PT

Total

22

BEAM 5 IMPLEMENTATION AND MODELLING RESULTS6

5.1

OBJECTIVES

The overall objective of the BEAM 5 working group was to make predictions about the
financial, economic and social implications of reducing fishing effort and fishing capacity in
the Thai demersal fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand to a level that would restore and conserve
fishery resources, improve the returns on investment of the remaining operators in the
demersal fisheries and generate high resource rent for the national economy. The specific
objectives have been stated in Section 1.2 and in Table 3.1.

5.2

METHODOLOGY

A summary of BEAM 5 was presented in Section 3.4. An abbreviated description of the

BEAM 5 methodology is given in Appendix F.

5.3

TASKS

The tasks of the working group were as follows:

5.3.1

Establish the model dimensions;

Prepare the model input parameters;

Make a set of simulations in accordance with the specific objectives listed above;

Report and interpret the results of the model simulations.

Model dimensions and biological/technical input data

A number of scientific papers, working papers and reports provided the background
information for the design of the modelling exercise and the input parameters. These included,
Kongprom et al. (1999); Supongpan and Suwanrumpa (1997) and earlier Scientific and
Advisory reports (FAO/DANIDA, 1996).
Model dimensions include:
(a) The number of stocks;
(b) The age groups of each stock;
(c) The number of fleets;
(d) Vessel age groups of each fleet and
(e) The number of areas accounted for in the model.

The members of the BEAM5 working group were the following: Pongpat Boonchuwong, Wasana
Khamchompoo, Jiraporn Linlapo, Atchara Vibhasiri, Pismorn Isara, Ratanawalee Phoonsawat, Jintana Jindalikit,
Pakjuta Khaemakorn, Suthep Jualaong, Kanit Chuapun, Zhang Xiang-guo, Suvimol Sanalak, Tan Geik Hong,
Per Sparre and Rolf Willmann

23

The dimensions of the BEAM 5 simulation of the demersal fisheries of the Gulf of Thailand
are shown in Table 5.1. The corresponding input parameters are contained in nine EXCEL
worksheets as follows:
1. Stock-structured input (this sheet also defines and contains the model dimensions);
2. Fleet-structured gear input and fleet/stock-structured catchability parameters;
3. Effort (fleet-structured);
4. Number of vessels (fleet-structured);
5. Prices (fleet/stock-structured);
6. Economy input (fleet-structured);
7. Fleet behaviour parameters (fleet-structured);
8. Tuning input (estimated fishing mortalities, fleet/stock-structured);
9. Observed landings to be used for tuning (fleet/stock-structured).
Table 5.1. Dimensions of Gulf of Thailand simulation
BEAM 5 SYSTEM DIMENSIONS
Time steps/year
12 (one time step = 0.0833 year)
Number of stocks
9
Number of fleets
8
Number of areas
2
Stock names
(9)

Fleet names

Number
of age
groups

(8)

Number of Area names

vessel ages
(2)

1 Threadfin bream

Small OBT

15

1 Inshore

2 Bigeye

Medium OBT

15

2 Offshore

3 Ponyfish

Large OBT

15

4 Grouper

10

Small PT

15

5 Shrimp, School prawn

(M. affinis)

Large PT

15

6 Shrimp, Banana prawn

(P. merguiensis)

Small PN

15

7 Crab

Large PN

15

8 Squid

Other Gears (OG)

15

9 Cuttlefish

The choice of the model dimensions and their implications are discussed in the following.

24

5.3.2

Fleet structure used for BEAM 5 for the Gulf of Thailand

Four types of vessels were considered in the BEAM 5 simulation, namely otterboard trawl
(OBT), pair trawl (PT), push net (PN) and other gears (OG).
The three first groups were further divided into vessel size groups, according to the length of
the vessels. Thus, altogether, 8 fleets were considered in the simulation of the total demersal
fisheries as indicated in Table 5.2 below.
Table 5.2 Fleets by vessel type and size categories
1 OBT Small
2 OBT Medium
3 OBT Large

Less than 14 meter

14-18 meter
More than 18 meter

4 PT Small
5 PT Large

Less than 18 meter

More than 18 meter

6 PN Small
7 PN Large

Less than 14 meter

More than 14 meter

8 OG (Other Gears)
5.3.3

Selection of nine species to represent the demersal resources of the Gulf of

Thailand

The number of commercially important species in the Gulf of Thailand is large and for
practical reasons (primarily lack of detailed information on all species) it was necessary to
select a (small) number of species to represent the entire demersal resources (Table 5.3).
Table 5.3 Nine species, selected to represent the nine species groups that represent the
entire demersal fishery of the Gulf of Thailand
Common name

Scientific name

Species group represented

Nemipterus hexodon
Priacanthus tayenus
Epinephalus sexfasciatus
Leiognathus bindus

Small size fish, medium price

Small size fish, low price
Large size fish, high price
Trash fish

Metapenaeus affinis
Penaeus merguiensis

All small-sized shrimp

All large-sized shrimp

Portunus pelagicus

All crabs

Loligo duvauceli
Sepia aculeata

All squids
All cuttlefishes

Four species of demersal fish

1.
2.
3.
4.

Threadfin bream
Bigeye (bulls eye)
Grouper
Ponyfish

Two species of shrimp

5.
6.

School prawn
Banana prawn

One species of crab

7.

Swimming crab

Two species of Cephalopods

8.
9.

Squid
Cuttlefish

25

Threadfin breams, bigeyes and groupers are the most important fish species, representing
more than 60% of the total demersal fishes. Of the threadfin breams the genus Nemipterus
comprises about 10 species, including N. hexodon, N. mesoprion and N. japonicus. The
species N. hexodon was chosen because it accounts for 48% of the catch of Nemipteridae.
Among the bigeyes Priacanthus tayenus accounts for about 95% of the catch. The grouper
Epinephalus sexfasciatus and the ponyfish Leiognathus bindus were also selected.
Shrimps and cephalopods are the most valuable part of the catch of the demersal species. The
representative species were also selected because of high landings and/or high market values.
Shrimp landings consist for 25% of school prawns of which Metapenaeus affinis is the
dominant species (80%) and for 23% of the banana prawn, Penaeus merguiensis. Those two
species were selected. Also the swimming crab Portunus pelagicus was selected.
Squids and cuttlefishes represent more than 83% of the cephalopods. Loligo duvauceli
constitutes about 68% of landings of squid and Sepia acculeata accounts for 55% of the catch
of cuttlefish. Those two species were selected.
Length frequency data applicable for analysis of growth parameters and mortality (such as K,
L and fishing mortality) were available for the year 1997. Length frequency data from the
Gulf of Thailand were available for three of the four species of demersal fish, the two shrimp
species, the crab species and the two cephalopods. One of the selected species (ponyfish) was
not represented in those data and therefore its biological parameters were extracted from the
literature via FishBase (Froese and Pauly, 2000).
The total catch of the demersal fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand in 1997 was about 1.4 million
tonnes, which was composed of 0.8 million tonnes of food fish (for human consumption) and
0.6 millions tonnes of trash fish (used for fish meal and oil).
The total landings of the nine selected species were 0.9 millions tonnes (64%), composed of
about 0.3 millions tonnes of food fish (50% of all food fish) and 0.6 millions tonnes of trash
fish.
The catch from the Gulf of Thailand, in year 1997, by species group and by fleet is shown in
Table 5.4. The landings are assumed to be equal to the catch since no discarding takes place in
the fisheries.
The species composition of landings by small pair trawlers is not known and therefore it was
assumed to be the same as that of large pair trawlers. Total landings of small pair trawlers
were estimated under the assumption that the CPUE of small pair trawlers is half of that of the
large pair trawlers. This assumption is not crucial for the overall results as the small pair
trawlers contribute only a small fraction of the total landings, but any conclusion derived for
small pair trawlers should be taken with considerable reservation.

26

Table 5.4 Total landings (tonnes) of demersal resources by species groups and by fleet
from the Gulf of Thailand in 1997
Species group Thread
fin
Fleet
breams

Big
eyes

Pony Groupers School Banana Crabs Squids Cuttle

fishes
prawns prawns
fishes
4,663

34

2,288

625 2,100 2,015 2,229

Medium OBT

11,755 20,837 153,876

2,978

2,453

312 4,467 8,563 7,698 212,939

Large OBT

47,180 36,238 307,752

2,307

757

200 2,905 18,009 21,972 437,320

854

Large PT

950 2,580 102,623

93

158

86

Small PN

360

280

8,238

537

110

501

113

339

10,478

Large PN

32

24

915

47

10

44

10

29

1,111

503

14,173

134

2,018

7,169 23,604 20,363

1625

69,591

Small OBT

Small PT *)

Other Gear

1,643 1,496

Total

21

32

869 3,848

17,093

24

950

2888 114,095

Total
624,30 61,479 593,094
5,547
8,259
8,513 34,497 52,953 36,804 863,577
*) Data for small PT are based on the composition of the large PT (rounded)

5.3.4

Fishing grounds in the Gulf of Thailand

The fishing grounds of the fleets were obtained from interviewing skippers. The small
otterboard trawlers and pushnetters fish predominantly in the shallow waters (less than 20 m
depth) and mostly in areas adjacent to river mouths. The medium and large otterboard
trawlers operate in offshore areas. Pair trawlers also operate in the offshore area at depths of
more than 20 m. As an approximation, it was decided to apply only two areas in the
simulation of the Gulf of Thailand demersal fisheries, namely:
Inshore area

Depths of less than 20 m

Offshore area

Depths of more than 20 m

The difficulties encountered to split the catches by smaller geographical areas, with the data
available to the working group, were another reason for the decision to use only two areas.
5.3.5

Growth, mortality and natural mortality of the Gulf of Thailand case study

Length frequency data collected from the fish for human consumption and the trash fish
components of the landings were collected monthly in 1997at fishing piers. The term trash
fish is used for fish landed for fish meal or oil production. Trash fish may consist of
species not suitable for human consumption and also small juvenile specimens of species
suitable for human consumption.
The length measurements used were total length for demersal fish and shrimp, mantle
length for cephalopods and carapace width for crabs.
The length frequency samples were stratified by gear and area. The first step in the data
processing was to raise the samples to the total weight landed by the boat-trip represented by

27

the sample. The next steps were to combine these data by gear and area and raise them to the
statistical catch of the Gulf of Thailand. The data thus obtained were considered to be
representative of the Gulf of Thailand.
The raised length frequency data were then used to estimate the von Bertalanffy growth
parameters, L , K and to with the FISAT software package (Gayanilo et al., 1995).
The growth parameters of ponyfish were obtained from the literature, using FishBase of
ICLARM (Froese and Pauly, 2000).
Parameters a and b in the length/weight relationship were estimated from
Weight = a* Length b (weight in kg and length in cm)
The maturity-at-age is in BEAM 5 modelled by the logistic curve. L50% and L75% of the
maturity ogive were estimated from maturity data.
Natural mortality was estimated by Paulys empirical formula (Pauly, 1980), using the von
Bertalanffy growth parameters and a surface water temperature of 29oC.
The applied stock parameters are shown in Table 5.5.
Table 5.5 Growth parameters, maturity ogive and natural mortality of the nine selected
species used as input for the BEAM 5 simulation
Threadfin Big eye
bream

Pony
fish

Grouper

School
prawn

Banana
prawn

Crab

Squid

Cuttle
fish

GROWTH
L (cm)

32.0

27.0

12.2

32.0

17.8

24.6

17.3

26.6

18.0

K / year

1.00

1.20

1.30

0.63

2.60

0.95

1.75

0.86

0.70

to year

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

-0.001

-0.002

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.000008

0.000010 0.000055 0.000374 0.001049

WEIGHT-LENGTH RELATIONSHIP W = a*Lb

a

0.000018

2.9000

0.000018 0.000015 0.000016

2.9000

3.0000

2.9000

3.0143

2.6930

3.0590

2.0000

2.0000

MATURITY OGIVE
L50% (cm)

18.8

17.5

6.5

25.5

12.1

15.9

14.0

7.1

12.8

L75% (cm)

23.8

21.7

7.5

28

15.8

22.3

16.6

9.3

15.2

2.10

2.84

1.30

3.92

1.85

3.05

1.70

1.66

NATURAL MORTALITY
M/year

2.60

28

5.3.6

Catches of the Gulf of Thailand

The total landings were extracted from the fisheries statistics of 1997. They were
subsequently split and allocated to the Inshore and Offshore area as explained above.
Table 5.6 Total landings (tonnes) of demersal resources by species and by fleet from the
Gulf of Thailand in 1997 (see also Table 5.4)
INSHORE AREA
Threadfin Big
breams eyes
Small OBT

1,643 1,496

Pony Groupers School Banana Crabs Squids Cuttle

fishes
prawns prawns
fishes

Total

4,663

34

2,288

625

2,100

2,015

2,229

17,093

Medium OBT

Large OBT

Small PT

Large PT

Small PN

360

280

8,238

0.1

537

110

501

113

339

10,478

Large PN

31.5

24.3

915

0.01

47

10

44

10

29

1111

Other Gear

503

2 12,756

116

2,018

7,169 17,229

3,864

387

44,044

2,538 1,802 26,572

150

4,890

7,914 19,874

6,002

2,984

72,726

Total

OFFSHORE AREA
Small OBT

Medium OBT

11,755 20,837 153,876

2,978

2,453

312

4,467

8,563

Large OBT

47,180 36,238 307,752

2,307

757

200

2,905 18,009 21,972 437,320

854

32

2580 102,623

93

158

86

869

3,848

Small PT*)
Large PT

8
950

21

7,698 212,939
24

950

2,888 114,095

Small PN

Large PN

Other Gear

1,417

18

6,375 16,499

1238

25,547

Total

59,893 59,676 566,522

5,397

3,369

599 14,623 46,951 33,820 790,851

Grand total

62,430 61,479 593,094

5,547

8,259

8,513 34,497 52,953 36,804 863,577

*) Species composition and total landings of small pair trawlers are unknown. Species composition is
assumed to be the same as that of large pair trawlers. Total landings are estimated under the
assumption that CPUE is half of that for the large pair trawlers

5.3.7

Fishing mortality of the Gulf of Thailand case study

Length frequency data were used to estimate the total mortality rates of the eight
representative species, except for the ponyfish that was assigned a plausible (but guessed)
value, derived from the literature using FishBase of ICLARM.
Using the FISAT program, the length-converted catch curve (see Sparre & Venema, 1998)
was applied to estimate the total mortality rate with the linear equation:

29

ln[

C ( L1 , L2 )
t ( L1 , L2 )

] = A Z * t[

L1 + L2
2

where C(L1,L2) is the number of fish caught with body lengths between L1 and L2
t(L1,L2) is the time it takes to grow from length L1 to length L2
t is the age of the fish
The slope of the linear regression is the total mortality rate, Z. Subsequently the total fishing
mortality rate F is derived from the equation F = Z - M.
Table 5.7 shows the total mortality rates used as input to BEAM 5.
Table 5.7 Mortality rates of the nine species used as input to BEAM 5
Stock

Threadfin
bream

Big
eye

Pony Grouper
fish

School
prawn

Banana
prawn

Fishing mortality
F / year

2.6

2.5

1.2

Natural mortality
M /year

2.6

2.1

Total mortality
Z / year

5.4

4.6

Crab Squid Cuttle

fish

1.4

2.9

2.4

2.9

2.4

1.6

2.8

1.3

3.9

1.9

3.0

1.7

1.7

4.0

2.7

6.8

4.3

5.9

4.1

3.3

The total fishing mortalities (F for all fleets combined as in Table 5.7) were subsequently
distributed over fleet components in the same proportions as the landings in tonnes, that is,
by:
Landings of species x by fleet y
F ( fleet x, species y ) = F ( All fleets, species x)
Total landings of species x
The catchability coefficient (Q) of each fleet catching each stock is derived from the equation:

Q(fleet x, species y) = F(fleet x, species y) / Effort(fleet x)

where fishing effort is measured in number of sea days (days away from port).

5.3.8

Cod end mesh size, and gear selection parameters

The cod end mesh size of otterboard trawls and pair trawls is 25 mm and for the pushnets it is
about 15 mm. The gear selection parameters, L50% and L75% (in the logistic curve) were
estimated from the length-converted catch curve as implemented in FISAT. Table 5.8 shows
the results of the estimation of gear selection parameters. The values for ponyfish are assumed
values.

30

Table 5.8 Gear selection parameters for the nine species used as input to BEAM 5
Species

Threadfin Bigeye
bream

L50 L75

Ponyfish Grouper

L50 L75 L50

L75 L50 L75

School
prawn

Banana
prawn

Crab

Squid

Cuttle
fish

L50 L75 L50 L75 L50 L75 L50 L75 L50 L75

Small OBT 10.6 11.7 15.5 17.1

4.0 5.0 14.6 15.6 9.0 9.6 12.1 12.6 9.7 10.5 7.8 8.8 8.2 8.9

Med. OBT 14.6 16.3 14.5 17.1

4.0 5.0 14.6 15.6 9.0 9.6 14.9 15.5 11.7

13 10.5 12.5 8.2 8.9

Large OBT 14.6 16.3 15.5 17.1

4.0 5.0 14.6 15.6 9.0 9.6 14.9 15.5 11.7

13 10.5 12.5 8.2 8.9

Small PT

13.4 14.4 15.1 16.3

4.0 5.0 14.6 15.6 10.0 11.0 14.9 15.5 11.7

13 10.5 12.5 9.4 10.0

Large PT

13.4 14.4 15.1 16.3

4.0 5.0 14.6 15.6 10.0 11.0 14.9 15.5 11.7

13 10.5 12.5 9.4 10.0

Small PN

5.0

6.0 7.0 8.0

4.0 5.0 5.0

6.0 8.0 8.6 8.6 9.2 8.9 9.6 5.0 6.0 3.5 4.0

Large PN

5.0

6.0 7.0 8.0

4.0 5.0 5.0

6.0 8.0 8.6 8.6 9.2 8.9 9.6 5.0 6.0 3.5 4.0

Other Gear 13.4 14.4

15

16

4.0 5.0 14.6 15.6 9.5 10.5

14 14.6

12

13 9.0 10.0 8.5 9.5

*Gear selection parameters L50% and L75%

These parameters correspond to the selection factors and selection ranges shown in Table 5.9
and Table 5.10 respectively. The use of the selection factor as an input parameter facilitates
the assessment of changes in mesh size, but L50%, L75% might have been used as the only gear
selection parameters.

Table 5.9 Mesh size and selection factors for the nine species corresponding to Table 5.8
FLEET

Mesh
size
(cm)

SELECTION FACTOR
Threadfin Bigeye
bream

Pony Grouper School Banana Crab Squid Cuttle

fish
prawn prawn
fish

Small OBT

2.5

4.24

6.20

1.60

5.84

3.60

4.84

3.88

3.12

3.28

Med. OBT

2.5

5.84

5.80

1.60

5.84

3.60

5.96

4.68

4.20

3.28

Large OBT

2.5

5.84

6.20

1.60

5.84

3.60

5.96

4.68

4.20

3.28

Small PT

2.5

5.36

6.04

1.60

5.84

4.00

5.96

4.68

4.20

3.76

Large PT

2.5

5.36

6.04

1.60

5.84

4.00

5.96

4.68

4.20

3.76

Small PN

1.5

3.33

4.67

2.67

3.33

5.33

5.73

5.93

3.33

2.33

Large PN

1.5

3.33

4.67

2.67

3.33

5.33

5.73

5.93

3.33

2.33

Other Gear

2.5

5.36

6.00

1.60

5.84

3.80

5.60

4.80

3.60

3.40

31

Table 5.10 Selection ranges (=L75% / L50%) for the nine species corresponding to
Table 5.8
Threadfin
bream

Bigeye

Pony
fish

Crab

Squid

Cuttle
fish

Small OBT

1.104

1.103

1.250

1.068

1.067

1.041

1.082

1.128

1.085

Med. OBT

1.116

1.179

1.250

1.068

1.067

1.040

1.111

1.190

1.085

Large OBT

1.116

1.103

1.250

1.068

1.067

1.040

1.111

1.190

1.085

Small PT

1.075

1.079

1.250

1.068

1.100

1.040

1.111

1.190

1.064

Large PT

1.075

1.079

1.250

1.068

1.100

1.040

1.111

1.190

1.064

Small PN

1.200

1.143

1.250

1.200

1.075

1.070

1.079

1.200

1.143

Large PN

1.200

1.143

1.250

1.200

1.075

1.070

1.079

1.200

1.143

Other Gear

1.075

1.067

1.250

1.068

1.105

1.043

1.083

1.111

1.118

FLEET

Grouper School Banana

prawn prawn

As it is assumed that discarding does not to take place in the Thai fishery, the discard
parameters (L50% and L75%) all have the value zero.

5.3.9

Effort, number of vessels and CPUE

Table 5.11 shows the effort by area in units of 1000 sea days and the number of vessels in
each fleet in the Gulf of Thailand in 1997.

Table 5.11 Effort by area and fleet and number of vessels by fleet in 1997
FLEET

Small
OBT

Medium Large Small Large Small Large

OBT
OBT
PT
PT
PN
PN

Inshore effort
(1000 sea days)

321.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

357.4

Offshore effort
(1000 sea days)

0.0

492.5

526.6

3.5

209.3

0.0

Total effort
(1000 sea days)

321.9

492.5

526.6

3.5

209.3 357.4

Number of vessels

2,012

2,052

1,773

16

Number of
days/year/boat

160.0

240.0

297.0 216.0 280.2 152.0

747

2351

Other
Gear

Total

72.5

4153.7

4,905

0.0

461.5

1,693

72.5

4,615.2

6,599

331

18,710

27,992

219.0

246.7

Table 5.12 shows the CPUE in kg per day per boat in 1997. The figures in Table 5.12 are
calculated from Table 5.6 and Table 5.11 by CPUE = Landings/Effort (kg/day).

32

Table 5.12 CPUE in 1997 by fishing area, fleet and species group
as catch per day per boat in kg
INSHORE AREA

Small Medium Large

OBT
OBT
OBT

Small
PT

Large
PT

Small
PN

Large
PN

Other
Gear

Threadfin breams

5.10

1.01

0.43

0.12

Bigeyes

4.65

0.78

0.34

0.00

Ponyfishes

14.48

23.05

12.62

3.07

Groupers

0.11

0.00

0.00

0.03

Metapenaeus spp

7.11

1.50

0.65

0.49

Penaeus spp

1.94

0.31

0.14

1.73

Crabs

6.52

1.40

0.61

4.15

Squids

6.26

0.32

0.14

0.93

Cuttlefishes

6.92

0.95

0.40

0.09

53.10

29.32

15.32

10.60

Total
OFFSHORE AREA

Small Medium Large

OBT
OBT
OBT

Small
PT

Large
PT

Small
PN

Large
PN

Other
Gear

Threadfin breams

23.87

89.60

2.29

4.54

0.00

Bigeyes

42.31

68.82

6.22

12.32

0.00

312.45

584.43

247.25

490.21

3.07

Groupers

6.05

4.38

0.22

0.44

0.04

Metapenaeus spp

4.98

1.44

0.38

0.75

0.00

Penaeus spp

0.63

0.38

0.21

0.41

0.00

Crabs

9.07

5.52

2.09

4.15

13.81

Squids

17.39

34.20

9.27

18.38

35.75

Cuttlefishes

15.63

41.73

6.96

13.80

2.68

432.38

830.49

274.88

545.01

55.35

Ponyfishes

Total

5.4

TUNING OF BEAM 5

The purpose of models like BEAM 5 is to predict (or simulate) the future bio-economic
features of alternative management strategies (for further details, see Appendix F and the
BEAM 5 manual).
In this section, the procedure of tuning BEAM 5 to produce the reference simulation, which
forms the basis for all other simulations, is explained below. The reference simulation aims at
recreating the observed situation in the most recent data year.
The most recent year for which data were available for the Gulf of Thailand was 1997. The
stock numbers in the sea were back-calculated to produce the observed landings by species
group and by fleet in year 1997. This value of year 1997 was then used to represent the year
2000, the first year in the suite of prediction years of BEAM 5 (the fifteen years period 20002014). The parameters were selected so that the system was in equilibrium when BEAM 5

33

Table 5.13 Relative landings by area (relative distribution by species group by fleet)*)
RELATIVE LANDINGS
Threadfin
breams

Big
eyes

Pony Groupers School Banana Crabs Squids Cuttle

fishes
prawns prawns
fishes
INSHORE AREA

Small OBT

0.6475 0.8301

0.1755

0.2265 0.4679

0.0790 0.1057 0.3357 0.7470

Small PN

0.1419 0.1554

0.3100

0.0007 0.1098

0.0139 0.0252 0.0188 0.1136

Large PN

0.0124 0.0135

0.0344

0.0001 0.0096

0.0013 0.0022 0.0017 0.0097

Other Gear

0.1982 0.0011

0.4801

0.7728 0.4127

0.9059 0.8669 0.6438 0.1297

Total

1.0000 1.0000

1.0000

1.0000 1.0000

1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

Med. OBT
Large OBT
Small PT
Large PT

OFFSHORE AREA
Small OBT
Med. OBT

0.1963 0.3492

0.2716

0.5518 0.7280

0.5211 0.3055 0.1824 0.2276

Large OBT

0.7877 0.6072

0.5432

0.4275 0.2247

0.3340 0.1987 0.3836 0.6497

Small PT

0.0001 0.0004

0.0015

0.0001 0.0004

0.0012 0.0005 0.0007 0.0007

Large PT

0.0159 0.0432

0.1811

0.0172 0.0469

0.1436 0.0594 0.0820 0.0854

0.0025

0.0033

1.0000

1.0000 1.0000

Small PN
Large PN
Other Gear

Total

1.0000 1.0000

0.4360 0.3514 0.0366

1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

*) Empty boxes signify zero or negligible landings

was executed in the deterministic mode, that is, without stochastic variation of input
parameters.
In the Workshop it was assumed (as an approximation to reality), that only Thai vessels
exploit the stocks in the Gulf of Thailand and that no migration of fish takes place out of and
into the area where these vessels are operating7. It was furthermore assumed (as an
approximation to reality) that no migration takes place between the two areas used for the
BEAM 5 simulation (inshore and offshore).
BEAM 5 does not contain a parameter estimation module, since most parameters are assumed
to be available before BEAM 5 is applied. However, there are a few vital parameters, which
are estimated while tuning BEAM 5 to the case study. In the tuning process, these
7

It also has been assumed that all the fish landed in Thailand was caught in Thai waters. This assumption may
be wrong, since it is known that the Thai fleet also operates in the waters of Indonesia and Cambodia. It is likely
that a considerable part of the Nemipterids was caught in Indonesia.

34

parameter values are modified until BEAM 5 produces the desired results. In this case these
values were the estimated fishing mortality rates and the observed landings of year 1997.
Table 5.6 shows the total landings by area, fleet and species group. The landings of the nine
species listed in the table are the total landings of the species groups represented by the
species in the list. Thus, for example, Threadfin breams represents the landings of all
threadfin breams and similar species. Similar species are species of approximately the same
size and value (price/kg) and biological parameters (e.g. growth).

Table 5.14 Fishing mortality distributed by fleet in the same proportions as the relative
landings (see Table 5.13)
EFFORT8

FISHING MORTALITY BY FLEET AND STOCK

INSHORE
AREA

Threadfin
bream

Small OBT

1.6835

Big
eye

Pony Grouper School Banana Crab

fish
prawn prawn

2.0751 0.2106

Squid

Cuttle
fish

0.3171 1.3569 0.1895 0.3064 0.8057 1.1952

321.9

Med. OBT

0.0

Large OBT

0.0

Small PT

0.0

Large PT

0.0

Small PN

0.3689

0.3884 0.3720

0.0009 0.3185 0.0334 0.0731 0.0452 0.1818

357.4

Large PN

0.0323

0.0337 0.0413

0.0001 0.0279 0.0030 0.0064 0.0040 0.0155

72.5

Other Gear

0.5154

0.0028 0.5761

1.0819 1.1968 2.1741 2.5140 1.5451 0.2075

4153.7

TOTAL

2.6000

2.5000 1.2000

1.4000 2.9000 2.4000 2.9000 2.4000 1.6000

OFFSHORE
AREA

FISHING MORTALITY BY FLEET AND STOCK

EFFORT

Small OBT
Med. OBT

0.5103

0.8729 0.3259

0.7725 2.1113 1.2507 0.8859 0.4377 0.3642

492.5

Large OBT

2.0481

1.5181 0.6519

0.5985 0.6516 0.8017 0.5761 0.9206 1.0395

526.6

Small PT

0.0003

0.0009 0.0018

0.0002 0.0011 0.0029 0.0014 0.0016 0.0011

3.5

Large PT

0.0412

0.1081 0.2174

0.0241 0.1360 0.3447 0.1723 0.1967 0.1366

209.3

Small PN

0.0

Large PN

0.0
0.0030

Other Gear
TOTAL

2.6000

2.5000 1.2000

0.0047

1.2643 0.8434 0.0586

1.4000 2.9000 2.4000 2.9000 2.4000 1.6000

Effort measured in 1000 sea days (days away from port)

35

461.5

In simulations it was assumed that all catches are landed, thus that no discarding takes place
in the Thai fishery.
The parameters estimated during the tuning process were:
1. The catchability coefficients (the relationship between effort and fishing mortality).
2. The number of recruits (0-group fish) entering the stock each year.
3. The relative catch by each fleet derived from Table 5.6 as shown in Table 5.13.
For each species the total fishing mortality (F = fishing mortality of all fleets combined) was
derived from the length-converted catch curve or from length-based cohort analysis, using the
FISAT software (Gayanilo, et al., 1995), as discussed in Section 5.3.5. These stock
assessment analyses were made before the start of the workshop. Natural mortalities (M) were
estimated by Paulys formula (Pauly, 1980). The results were presented above in Table 5.7.
Some fish stock assessment results, however, gave unrealistically high total mortality rates
(Z), ranging from 2.7 for groupers to 5.4 for threadfin breams. With such high total mortality
rates fish (and other animals) would die at a very fast rate and rarely get more than half a year
old. With a total mortality of Z = 5 per year, only 8 % of the recruits would survive for six
months and only 0.5% would survive the first year. (Such high values may be realistic for
small shrimps, which have a short life span of less than one year.)
In the simulations high values for total mortality (Z) will reduce the effect of reducing fishing
mortality (F), as most young fish that are not caught, would die anyway from natural causes
(M) before they could reach a bigger and more valuable size.
The values of the mortality rates were also discussed in the working group and were found to
be on the high side, compared to values observed in other areas by some members of the
working group and therefore the values were reduced to levels believed to be more realistic.
The values of fishing mortalities (F) used for the BEAM 5 simulations are shown in Table
5.14.
Taking the average values of natural and fishing mortalities as derived from the assessments
and subsequently somewhat adjusted by the BEAM 5 working group and comparing them
with the values used by the ECOPATH working group (see Section 6 and Table 5.15),
indicates that mortalities used in BEAM 5 were indeed on the high side.

Table 5.15 Comparison of average mortality rates in BEAM 5 and ECOPATH for Gulf
of Thailand
Mean mortality over species groups
ECOPATH
BEAM 5

F
0.4
2.2

M
1.5
2.3

Z
1.9
4.5

The total fishing mortalities were distributed over the fleets in the same proportions as the
landings, as shown in Table 5.14. It was assumed that fishing mortalities were the same in the
two areas. This assumption was made because separate estimates for the two areas were not
available. Table 5.14 also contains the effort of each fleet in each area in the right most
column, in units of 1000 sea days (days away from port).

36

A zero value in the last column of Table 5.14 indicates that the fleet in question is assumed
not to operate in that particular area. The assumption that the two areas are fished by different
fleets further leads to suggest that the exploitation patterns and fishing mortalities are also
different for the two areas. However, no data were available to throw light on this question.
The catchability coefficient, Q, was then derived from Q = F/Effort, where F is the fishing
mortality (see Table 5.14). (Table 5.16).

Table 5.16 Catchability coefficients (Q = Fishing mortality/Effort)

CATCHABILITY COEFFICIENTS
INSHORE
AREA

Threadfin
bream

Bigeye Ponyfish Grouper School

prawn

Banana
prawn

Small OBT

0.05229

0.06446 0.00654 0.00985 0.04215

0.00589

0.00952 0.02503 0.03713

Small PN

0.01032

0.01087 0.01041 0.00003 0.00891

0.00093

0.00205 0.00126 0.00509

Large PN

0.00445

0.00465 0.00570 0.00001 0.00385

0.00042

0.00089 0.00055 0.00215

Other Gear

0.00124

0.00001 0.00139 0.00260 0.00288

0.00523

0.00605 0.00372 0.00050

Med. OBT

0.01036

0.01772 0.00662 0.01569 0.04287

0.02540

0.01799 0.00889 0.00739

Large OBT

0.03889

0.02883 0.01238 0.01137 0.01237

0.01522

0.01094 0.01748 0.01974

Small PT

0.00099

0.00260 0.00524 0.00058 0.00328

0.00831

0.00415 0.00474 0.00329

Large PT

0.00197

0.00516 0.01038 0.00115 0.00650

0.01647

0.00823 0.00940 0.00653

Crab

Squid

Cuttle
fish

Med. OBT
Large OBT
Small PT
Large PT

OFFSHORE
AREA
Small OBT

Small PN
Large PN
0.00007 0.00010

Other Gear

0.02739 0.01827 0.00127

The stock numbers in the sea were back-calculated to produce the observed catches together
with the observed fishing mortalities. The stock numbers in BEAM 5 can be manipulated by
the following input parameters:
1. The initial stock numbers
2. The parameters in the Beverton and Holt stock recruitment model:

Re cruitment = B1

SSB
1 + B2 * SSB

where recruitment is the number of 0-group fish on the 1st of January and SSB is the
spawning stock biomass, that is the biomass of mature fish. B1 and B2 are the parameters of
the model.

37

Although BEAM 5 allows for continuous recruitment during the year, it was assumed as a
simplifying approximation that all fish recruit on the 1st of January. The parameter B2 was
given the value 0.01 for all stocks. This relatively large value only produces a stock and
recruitment relationship for small values of SSB. For larger values of SSB the model does not
SSB
generate a relationship between recruitment and SSB, because the factor
1 + B2 * SSB
approaches 1/B2 when SSB is large. This means that recruitment is (almost) constant if
BEAM 5 is run in the deterministic mode.
The parameter B1, then becomes proportional to the recruitment, which in turn is proportional
to the catches and thus to the weight of the landings. Thus by manipulating the value of B1
one can create any desired amount of landings. The B1s of the various species were given a
value to recreate the observed landings in 1997. The values of B1 (based on numbers in units
of 1000 fish and biomass in tonnes) are shown in the bottom row of Table 5.17.
The distributions by area of the biomass as well as the total number of recruits were also
estimated using the proportions of the landings from each area as given in Table 5.6. The
results are shown in Table 5.17.
Table 5.17 Distribution of relative landings by area by species (used to estimate
recruitment and biomass distribution on areas) and
Parameter, B1, in the Beverton and Holt stock/recruitment model by species
Landings by area Threadfin Bigeye
as % of total and
bream
B1

Pony
fish

Grouper School Banana Crab Squid Cuttle

prawn prawn
fish

Inshore (%)

58

93

64

11

11

Offshore (%)

95

97

96

97

42

36

89

89

7050

66000

57000

63000

47000

38000

B1
(recruitment
parameter)

105000

83000 17000000

The stock numbers in the first month of the first year (the initial stock numbers), have to be
given as input and these numbers have an influence on the catches, biomass etc. in the first
year. The initial stock numbers were selected to produce the equilibrium situation at the
beginning of the simulation period.
Mesh selection parameters (L50% and L75%) used for the reference simulation, are those
estimated for the present fishery (see Table 5.8).
BEAM 5 allows for change from year to year of most parameters and inputs, but in the
reference simulation all parameters and inputs were kept constant from year to year.
The simulation of BEAM 5, which recreated the observed landings in 1997, was used as the
reference for the various predictions made to analyse alternative management regimes.
BEAM 5 allows for stochastic simulation of (for example) recruitment (see BEAM 5 manual
for further explanation), but due to time constraints this option was not used.

38

5.5

ECONOMIC DATA

BEAM 5 requires estimates of a range of economic data including:

a)

Average fish prices by species or species group;

b)

Data on average variable and fixed harvesting costs of the different vessel categories;

c)

Fisheries management costs;

d)

Investment costs in fishing craft and gear;

e)

Estimates of the adjustments needed to derive economic efficiency prices from observed
input prices including data on taxes, license fees and other transfer payments;

f)

Estimates of decommissioning costs to compensate owners of vessels that are

withdrawn from the fisheries and costs of compensating displaced crew;

g)

The financial and economic discount rates to discount costs and earnings that arise in
future years from the point of view of vessel owners (financial discount rate) and the
point of view of the economy at large (economic discount rate).

Further details can be found in Appendix F.

The data sources for the estimates of economic data included cost and earnings surveys
conducted in 1995 & 1998 by the Department of Fisheries and a special survey in 1998, also
by DOF, on small-scale fisheries. The latter covered the following gear types:
Small Otterboard trawlers
Medium Otterboard trawlers
Large Otterboard trawlers
Small pair trawlers
Large/medium pair trawlers
Small pushnetters
Large/medium pushnetters
Small-scale fishing gears:
- whiting gill net
- crab gill net
- shrimp gill net
- cuttlefish trammel net
- fish, squid, shrimp, crab traps
- squid falling net

The three surveys inquired about the following data:

Technical specifications of each fleet type (e.g. vessel length, age of vessel, engine
type, horse power and gear);
Intensity of fishing (i.e. number of fishing days per month and number of fishing
months per year);
39

 Employment (i.e. number of crew and family members among crew);

Use of fuel, ice and oil per fishing month (quantity);
Total value of landings and average price per kg;
Catch composition by main types of species groups and their use (i.e. edible fish,
trash fish, shrimp, cephalopods and others);
Initial investment into fishing vessel, engine and gear;
Operating cost per month, fishing day and/or fishing trip (i.e. fuel & oil, ice, repair
and maintenance, crew remuneration and others);
Fixed cost per month (i.e. interest on debt, estimated depreciation from data on
initial investment and lifetime of vessel, engine and gear);
Type of crew remuneration (i.e. sharing system and/or fixed monthly wage).

The number of fishing vessels by category was derived from the following two sources:
Fishing Vessel Register;
1995 Marine Fisheries Census.

The numbers of fishing vessels and fishing days by fleet category given in Table 5.18 were
used as input parameters.
Table 5.18 Input parameters for fleet and fishing effort for the BEAM 5 model
Fleet

Small OBT

Crew
Crew
Vessels
(total
(number (average
of units) number) number)
2,012
4
8,048

Fishing days
Fishing days
(average number)
(total
number)
160
321,920

Med. OBT

2,052

16,416

240

492,480

Large OBT

1,773

16

28,368

297

526,581

Small PT

16

10

160

216

3,456

Large PT

745

19

14,155

281

209,345

Small PN

2,351

4,702

152

357,352

331

1,324

219

72,489

18,170

1.7

30,889

254

4,615,180

Large/medium PN
Other Gear

Data on current investment cost for a new vessel were obtained from the DOF Fishing Vessel
Development Section, while price data were obtained from a recent survey by the DOF
Marine Fishery Division.
For estimating adjusted costs for the economic analysis in BEAM 5, the data applied in the
Study on Fishery Complex of the Andaman Sea Coast, 1997 were used. These refer to 1997
estimates of the Standard Conversion Factor (SCF = 0.956) and the opportunity cost of
unskilled labour.

40

Data on fuel market prices and fuel tax structure were obtained from the Office of National
Energy Policy. These were used to estimate the tax revenue part in the market price per litre
of High Speed Diesel Fuel that is commonly used by fishing vessels. The estimate of total tax
revenue income by the government from the fishing fleet may be an overestimate because
some larger-sized vessels are reportedly purchasing fuel at sea outside Thai territorial waters.
5.5.1

Prices

The average prices given in Table 5.19 (in Baht/kg) were used in the BEAM 5 model.
Medium and small sized pony fish were used to model a combination of fast growing smallsized species that are currently reported in catch statistics in the category of trash fish.

Table 5.19 Average prices in Baht/kg for the nine species groups by size category
Species group

Size category
Large

Medium

Small

25

15

10

10.7

Pony fish

10

Grouper

60

15

10

School Prawn

120

110

80

Banana Prawn

430

300

200

Crab

80

70

40

Squid

62.8

42

28

70

57

22

Threadfin bream
Big eye

Cuttle fish

Table 5.20 Percentage of harvesting costs applied

Fleet

Small otterboard trawlers

59

Medium otterboard trawlers

78

Large otterboard trawlers

69

Small pair trawlers

75

Large/medium pair trawlers

47

Small pushnetters

47

Other gear

100

41

5.6

HARVESTING COSTS

The cost data presented below represent the full annual harvesting costs of an average boat in
each fleet category. Except for the cost of fish handling calculated on a per unit weight basis,
all other cost categories have been adjusted by a reduction factor to account for the fact that
the base year simulation did not incorporate the total catch. The percentage of the actual cost
used in calculating the financial and economic performance of the fleets is shown in Table
5.20
5.6.1

Cost of handling

Based on the costs and earnings survey data of monthly operating costs, the cost of handling
per kg were derived as the sum of landing charges and transportation cost from the point of
landing to the point of first sale. The average costs for each fleet type are given in Table 5.21.
Table 5.21 Cost of handling per kg, in Baht
Fleet

Baht

Small otterboard trawlers

0.44

Medium otterboard trawlers

0.6

Large otterboard trawlers

0.57

Small pair trawlers

Large/medium pair trawlers

0.46

Small pushnetters

Other gear
5.6.2

0.18

Operating costs

Operating costs comprise of expenditures for fuel, ice, repair and maintenance, other materials
and food. The data in the survey were reported on a monthly basis, which were converted in
costs per fishing day by dividing the monthly total by the number of fishing days per month.
Table 5.22 Operating cost per fishing day by fleet and area (Baht)
Fleet

<20 m depth

Small otterboard trawlers

>20 m depth

2,948

Medium otterboard trawlers

5,791

Large otterboard trawlers

6,827

Small pair trawlers

5,775

Large/medium pair trawlers

10,696

Small pushnetters

1,864

Large/medium pushnetters

4,795

Other gear

115

42

The average operating costs per fishing day for each type of fishing fleet and two fishing
areas defined as fishing grounds with a depth of less and more than 20 m are shown in Table
5.22.
5.6.3

Crew share

Two types of crew remuneration were applied, namely a sharing system and a fixed monthly
wage. In BEAM 5, the crew share is expressed as gross revenue per fishing day minus
operating costs per fishing day multiplied by the share accruing to the crew. In the costs and
earnings survey, the share income of the crew was expressed in Baht per month. This amount
formed the basis to estimate the average share (in %) that serves as the input data for the
BEAM 5 model. The average fixed monthly crew income by fleet type was derived directly
from the costs and earnings surveys. The data on crew remuneration used as input into BEAM
5 are summarized in Table 5.23.
Table 5.23 Crew remuneration as shares of the catch (see text)
Fleet

Crew
share in %

Fixed crew
income per
month (Baht)

Small otterboard trawlers

34.8

301

Medium otterboard trawlers

23.0

916

Large otterboard trawlers

35.7

669

1,889

Large/medium pair trawlers

8.7

3,649

Small pushnetters

36.0

294

Large/medium pushnetters

62.0

330

Small pair trawlers

Other gear
5.6.4

Fixed costs

Fixed costs were estimated from the costs and earnings surveys that included the following
categories: a) interest on debt, b) depreciation and c) opportunity cost of own capital. The fact
that a large number of vessels are older than 15 to 20 years is reflected in low depreciation
costs. For the financial analysis, depreciation costs were excluded from the fixed costs for the
reason that in BEAM 5 fleet performance is assessed over a period of 15 (or more) years.
During this period, the simulation model allows for investments in new vessels whereby the
invested amount is shown as a cash outflow at the time of investment thereby reducing the net
present value over the whole simulation period. The inclusion of depreciation in this type of
analysis would result in double counting of capital expenditures.
Fixed costs (in Baht) used as input parameters into BEAM 5 are shown in Table 5.24.

43

Table 5.24 Fixed cost per vessel per year by fleet type
Fleet

Baht

Small otterboard trawlers

Medium otterboard trawlers

147,780

Large otterboard trawlers

225,612

Small pair trawlers

281,496

Large/medium pair trawlers

281,299

Small pushnetters

36,780

Large/medium pushnetters
Other gear
5.6.5

51,300

156,351
28,849

Licence fee

Licence fees are paid by some categories of vessels. The data were obtained from figures
reported in the costs and earnings surveys (Table 5.25).
Table 5.25 Annual licence fee per vessel type, in Baht
Fleet

Baht

Small otterboard trawlers

2,220

Medium otterboard trawlers

6,168

Large otterboard trawlers

13,668

Small pair trawlers

Large/medium pair trawlers

4,800

Small pushnetters

2,232

Large/medium pushnetters

15,468

Other gears
5.6.6

Investment costs of new vessel

The investment cost of a new vessel is needed in BEAM 5 to simulate replacements of boats
that are retired from the fleet because they have reached the end of their technical lifespan.
Investments into new vessels may also take place because of new entries into the fishery in
expectation of good returns. The figures in Table 5.26 are based on current estimates of
investment costs that largely vary with the size of the vessels and their horsepower rather than
with the type of fishing method:

44

Table 5.26 Investment cost per vessel (1000 Baht)

Fleet

Cost

Small otterboard trawlers

2,250

Medium otterboard trawlers

4,250

Large otterboard trawlers

6,250

Small pair trawlers

2,250

Large/medium pair trawlers

5,250

Small pushnetters

800

Large/medium pushnetters
Other gears
5.6.7

4,250
300

Fisheries management costs

These costs are incurred by government and include expenditures for fisheries research,
administration and, surveillance and enforcement. They were estimated from the average
annual budgetary allocations made during the last five years. Fisheries management costs
were apportioned among the fleets in ratio to their respective contribution to the total value of
landings in 1998 (Table 5.27).
Table 5.27 Fisheries management costs per fleet, in thousand Baht
Fleet

Costs

Small otterboard trawlers

32,844

Medium otterboard trawlers

47,744

Large otterboard trawlers

81,744

Small pair trawlers

100

Large/medium pair trawlers

25,944

Small pushnetters

14,244

Large/medium pushnetters

6,930

Other gears

30,644

Total

240,194

45

5.7

INPUT PARAMETERS FOR THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Whereas the financial performance is undertaken from the point of view of the fishing firms
or boat owners, the economic performance is assessed from the standpoint of society as a
whole. Transfer payments between different economic agents (including the government
treasury) such as interest payments, re-payment of principal, taxes, import duties, license fees
etc. are not considered as costs and therefore excluded from the calculation of the net return to
society as a whole (i.e. economic rent) in the economic analysis. Internationally traded inputs
such as fuel are valued at their border prices net of duties and taxes. Prices of domestically
produced goods were adjusted by a Standard Conversion Factor (SCF). An SCF of 0.956 was
reported in the above referenced fisheries project analysis report of 19979.
The current fuel tax per litre is Baht 2.753 equal to 26.5 % of the retail price of H. Diesel of
Baht 10.39.
Opportunity cost of labour was estimated as a weighted average of skilled and unskilled crew
remuneration as follows:
Skilled crew usually comprise the skipper and on larger vessels also an engineer.
Opportunity cost of skilled labour is estimated from reported earnings in the cost
and earnings surveys multiplied by the SCF;
Opportunity cost of unskilled labour was estimated at B 3800 per month as reported
in 1997 project analysis report. The monthly figure was multiplied by the number of
reported fishing months per year.

Fisheries management costs (in Baht) were adjusted by the SCF. All other costs items
remained unchanged.
Table 5.28 Parameters of the Economic Analysis
Cost of Operating Fuel tax Opportunity cost of
labour
cost per per fishing
handling
(per person per
day
per kg fishing day
year)
(Baht)
(Baht)
(Baht)
(Baht)
Small otterboard trawlers

0.42064

2,433

462

38,670

Medium otterboard trawlers

0.5736

4,713

987

49,383

Large otterboard trawlers

0.54492

5,498

1,234

58,523

4,769

902

37,016

0.43976

9,006

1,463

60,280

1,533

299

37,432

0.17208

3,829

906

87,988

96

17

38,000

Small pair trawlers

Large/medium pair trawlers
Small pushnetters
Large/medium pushnetters
Other gears
9

Study on Fishery Complex of the Andaman Sea Coast, 1997

46

5.8

SIMULATION RESULTS

A word of caution should precede the presentation of the simulation results. In the preparation
of the input parameters a series of difficulties were encountered including inconsistencies
between data obtained from different sources, incomplete vessel registries, the need to
aggregate or segregate data across different types of gear and others. While great efforts and
reasoned estimates and judgements have been made in addressing these difficulties, they are
unlikely to have removed all errors. Therefore, the outcomes of the simulations should be
interpreted only as providing orders of magnitude. A future improved data set would allow for
more detailed analysis of the various possible management options including, for example, an
extension of the inshore no-trawl zone or variations in the timing of closed seasons.
As can be seen in Table 5.29, nearly three quarters of the total simulated demersal catch of
892 thousand tons were taken by otterboard trawl. Pair trawl and other types of fishing gear
(i.e. mostly various types of small-scale gear) made up 14% and 10% respectively, while
pushnets contributed just about 1% of total demersal landings. However, more than one third
of the total catch value of Baht 16.4 billion (US $ 449 million) is produced by coastal smallscale fishermen because of the higher share of high priced species in the catch including
shrimp, squids and crabs. Conversely, the predominant catch by trawlers is made up of socalled trashfish comprising low value small species as well as juveniles of commercial
species.
The demersal fisheries as a whole continue to show, perhaps surprisingly, positive financial
and economic returns. In aggregation, the industrial fleets, however, indicate losses while
small-scale fisheries (i.e. OG, other gear types) appear to be highly profitable, both from the
point of view of the individual operator as well as from societys point of view. This would
suggest that wherever possible, preference should be given to operations by small-scale
fishing gear. This could be achieved by, for example, extending the exclusive inshore zone for
small-scale operations further out into the sea.
These results are averages thus hiding perhaps large variations between individual vessels in
each gear category. Moreover, an overestimate of the number of fishing vessels would lead to
an underestimate of the average catch and catch value per vessel and thus of profitability
The large difference in profitability between otterboard trawling and pair trawling could be
related to the shifting of vessels within the season between these methods rather than to a
genuine difference in performance. Such shifts could pose difficulties in attributing correctly
the catch to either one or the other category. In aggregation, these two fleets would just breakeven in financial terms. This result is corroborated by a high percentage of old vessels above
20 years of age (Somying Piumsomboon, 1999). A high average age of the fleet is a typical
feature of a mature open access fishery because low or negative average returns make it hard
for the owners to re-invest.

47

Table 5.29 Base Year 199710

Otterboard
trawl

Pair trawl

Pushnet

Other gear

Total

655,075

132,154

12,596

91,822

891,648

Vessels (number)

5,837

761

2,682

18,170

27,450

Crew (number)

52,832

14,315

6,026

30,889

104,062

Catch value

8,737

1,370

282

5,998

16,387

Costs of effort

4,350

1,578

395

407

6,730

Effort tax

915

250

81

78

1,325

Cost of landing

377

52

430

1,282

624

83

1,523

3,512

Fixed costs

573

174

65

524

1,336

Licence fees

29

37

1,211

-1,311

-348

3,465

3,016

Management cost

162

26

21

31

240

Effort tax

915

250

81

78

1,325

Licence fees

29

37

Net Cash Flow

782

227

65

48

1,122

Gross revenue

8,737

1,370

282

5,998

16,387

Cost of effort

4,287

1,540

388

399

6,597

Cost of landings

361

50

411

Crew opportunity
cost

1,961

697

137

1,174

3,970

Management cost

155

25

14

29

224

1,990

-942

-258

4,396

5,185

Total catch (tonnes)

FINANCIAL
ANALYSIS

Crew remuneration

Net Cash Flow

GOVERNMENT
BUDGET

ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS

Net Cash Flow

10

Values in million Baht, unless otherwise indicated

48

Table 5.30 Summary of results

Option

Financial
analysis
(million
Baht)

Economic Government Total catch Total value Average

price
finance
(tonnes)
or gross
analysis
(Baht/kg)
(million
revenue
(million
Baht)
(million
Baht)
Baht)
A

BASE CASE

Net Cash Flow

3,016

5,185

1,122

NPV-12%

25,136

43,209

9,350

NPV-7%

43,090

74,073

16,029

3,501

5,596

1,036

NPV-12%

29,178

46,633

8,634

NPV-7%

50,020

79,942

14,801

18

883,481

16,260

18

13,265

22

NO PUSHNET AND TRAWL AT 50%

Net Cash Flow

5,239

6,989

437

NPV-12%

43,659

58,244

3,643

NPV-7%

74,843

99,846

6,245

16,387

NO PUSHNET

Net Cash Flow

891,648

592,981

PUSHNET FISHING AND TRAWL AT 50%

Net Cash Flow

4,813

6,624

523

NPV-12%

40,107

55,196

4,359

NPV-7%

68,755

94,622

7,472

602,253

13,424

22

10,933

28

NO PUSHNET AND TRAWL AT 25%

Net Cash Flow

5,506

6,878

138

NPV-12%

45,887

57,320

1,148

NPV-7%

78,663

98,263

1,968

385,874

An interesting finding is that the economic performance of the demersal fisheries is

apparently considerably better than their financial performance. This is the result of two
factors.
One reason is the sales tax on fuel, which is an income to government but a cost to the fishing
firms. The simulation results may, however, overestimate the fuel purchased domestically by
Thai fishing vessels and thus the amount of fuel tax collected by the government. There is
evidence that larger Thai fishing vessels often purchase fuel at sea outside Thai territorial
waters at close to world market prices. There are also reports indicating that fuel is bought by
Thai fishing vessels at Malaysian fishing ports or at sea from Malaysian vessels. Fuel is sold
in Malaysia for either commercial or private use at below world market prices.

49

The other reason is that non-traded domestic inputs were adjusted by the standard conversion
factor of 0.956 leading to slightly lower economic costs of such inputs.
In aggregation, the simulation results indicate slightly lower opportunity costs of labour than
observed labour remuneration as derived from cost and earnings sample surveys. The
expectation would have been that opportunity costs of labour are below actual labour
remuneration. The reason might be the widespread employment of Burmese fishermen on the
medium and large trawlers who are not always paid the legal minimum wage. The latter was
used to estimate the opportunity cost of unskilled labour.
Apart from the base case simulation (i.e. data of the base year of 1997, see Base Case, A in
Table 5.30), a series of simulations were run to assess the impact on financial and economic
performance of
The complete cessation of the pushnet fishery (see B in Table 5.30)

The reduction of all types of fishing effort by 50% as well as the cessation of
pushnet fishing (see C in Table 5.30)

The reduction of all types of fishing effort by 75% as well as the cessation of
pushnet fishing (see E in Table 5.30)

A reduction of fishing effort of all gear-types by 50% and maintaining pushnet

fishing (see D in Table 5.30).

The salient results of these simulations are shown in Table 5.30 and are further discussed
below. At the outset, it should be kept in mind that the costs of bringing about the reduction of
fishing capacity and effort through, for example, a vessel buy-back scheme and the re-training
of displaced labour force, have not been considered in these simulations.
The complete cessation of pushnet fishing would increase annual net economic benefit from
5,185 (see A) to 5,596 million (see B), thus by Baht 411 million (about US $ 11 million). The
largest gain, however, would occur from an additional reduction of excessive and wasteful
trawling effort to as low as one half of the current level. The simulation results indicate that
this would increase the annual net economic benefit by an additional Baht 1.8 billion (US $
48 million). This gain is the result of both, cost savings of a smaller fleet and higher average
fish prices because more of the commercial species are given time before capture to grow to
larger specimens that fetch higher prices.
If the annual gain in financial and economic net cash flows is translated into permanent future
income streams and discounted at a discount rate of 7 percent (or 12 percent respectively), the
Net Present Values (NPV) are obtained. As can be seen in Table 5.30C, the banning of
pushnet fishing and the halving of fishing effort would increase the NPV (7% discount rate)
from 74.1 to about 99.8 billion Baht (about US $ 2 billion to about US $ 2.7 billion). If
pushnet fishing were to be maintained at the current level and the other gear reduced by 50%
(see Table 5.30D), the NPV would increase only to Baht 94.6 billion (US $ 2.6 billion).
The estimates of the potential financial and economic benefits from improved fisheries
management derived from the BEAM 5 simulations appear to be relatively small even when
considering that they are, on an average, somewhat underestimated because of the fact that
only about 70 percent of the catch was included into the modelling exercise. There are two

50

principal reasons for this outcome. First, the BEAM 5 analysis does not incorporate potential
eco-system and bio-diversity benefits from improved fisheries management. Higher overall
abundance of fish stocks could make the eco-system more resilient and more stable over time.
It would also avoid the potential threat of species extinction that would have to be reckoned
with were the current high level of fishing effort to continue into the future.
An even more fundamental reason could be that the current high estimates of natural and
fishing mortalities are erroneous. The high estimates of natural mortality values (M) ranging
between 1.7 and 3.9 imply that the gains are small from leaving the fish longer in the sea to
grow to a larger size as many specimens would die in the process due to natural causes. There
are some valid reasons to doubt the accuracy of the typical estimates of both high fishing
mortality and natural mortality in tropical fisheries.
Lower mortality estimates were applied in the ECOPATH model, discussed below in Section
6. To corroborate model consistency the same rates should be applied in both models.

51

ECOPATH-ECOSYSTEM MODELLING OF THE GULF OF

THAILAND

6.1

INTRODUCTION

The Gulf of Thailand has been used as a case study in numerous analyses to illustrate how
fisheries development may impact ecosystem resources, for example May et al. (1979), Pauly
(1979) and Beddington and May (1982). The main reasons for this interest are that the
demersal resources of the Gulf of Thailand were virtually unexploited until the early 1960s
and that the state of the demersal resources since then has been documented continuously
through standardized research vessel trawl surveys.
These research vessel surveys are conducted by the Thai Marine Fisheries Division to
investigate the state of the marine resources following the introduction of German otterboard
trawling in 1960 (Tiews, 1962). From 1960 to 1965 the trawl surveys were done in at prespecified stations. From 1966 onwards, the Gulf of Thailand was divided into nine areas, Area
I to Area IX and about 500 stations or grids were defined, each grid covering 225 nm (15nm
* 15 nm). Initially the surveys were conducted on a monthly basis, with a variable number of
stations being covered. In more recent years the number of stations covered by the surveys
has been reduced due to the high costs involved. From 1994 onwards, the routine surveys are
done on a bi-monthly basis, with daytime and nighttime operations alternating between years
(Vibunpant et al., 2000).
The demersal fisheries in the Gulf developed rapidly after their introduction in the mid 1960s,
while the CPUE of the trawl surveys showed a progressively decreasing trend from 1966 to
1995. In 1966, the average CPUE of the total catch by research vessels was 172.9 kg/h. A
sharp decline occurred from 1966 to 1975 with the CPUE declining to 61.5 kg/h. From 1975
to 1983 the decreasing trend was rather stagnant with the CPUE around 50 kg/h and it slightly
increased in 1984 to reach 62.1 kg/h. Thereafter, the CPUE declined again and it reached a
minimum of 21.5 kg/h in 1995.
The present report uses ecosystem modelling to investigate bio-economic aspects of resource
utilization in the Gulf of Thailand. The ecosystem model used for the analysis is developed
using the ECOPATH with ECOSIM software (available at www.ecopath.org ) and it draws on
a series of previous models. Pauly and Christensen (1993) thus constructed two preliminary
ECOPATH models of the Gulf of Thailand, one covering the 0-10 m depth zone and another
covering the 10-50 m depth zone. These models were constructed based mainly on catch
statistics data from FAO and they did not incorporate the research vessel information from the
Gulf of Thailand.
Subsequently, Christensen (1998) constructed two mass-balance trophic models based on
information from the research vessel surveys. One of these described the initial phase of
fisheries development in the mid-1960s and the other the phase of severe depletion of the
early-1980s. Christensen further used the dynamic simulation model ECOSIM to study if the
changes in catch composition and abundances over the time period could be explained by the
impact of the fisheries and he concluded that this was likely. More recently, Vibunpant et al.
(2000) described a trophic model of the coastal fisheries ecosystem in the Gulf of Thailand.
Also, work is presently in progress as part of an ADB-funded regional technical assistance
(ADB-RETA 5766) to develop an ecosystem model of the Gulf of Thailand. This section in

52

the present report is based on an updated model developed in synergy between the ADBRETA and the present FAO/FISHCODE sponsored activity.

6.2

ECOSYSTEM

MODELING AND ITS RELEVANCE FOR THE WORKSHOP

OBJECTIVES

The workshop was designed to study bio-economic aspects of the demersal fisheries of the
Gulf of Thailand and as described in Section 3.6 the workshop applied three different model
types to address the workshops objectives. One of these was a generic ecosystem model,
ECOPATH with ECOSIM, which has been widely used throughout the world for ecosystem
modelling and which is increasingly being used for ecosystem-based management of
fisheries. As it incorporates ecological considerations to the question of how to manage
fisheries it provides a useful addition to more traditional approaches to fisheries management.
The model builds on information obtained through the traditional stock assessments.
ECOPATH is a mass-balance model that can be constructed based on fairly easily accessible
biological and ecological parameters. The basic equations through which mass-balance is
achieved state that:
Production = Predation mortality + fishing mortality + biomass accumulation +
net migration + other mortality
and
Consumption = Production + unassimilated food + respiration
ECOPATH models are in general constructed so as to include all functional groups (or
ecological guilds) and fisheries living in and impacting an ecosystem. Models often include
30 or more functional groups and are often parameterized using available information from
the ecosystem in question, supplemented with published data from various other sources. In
many recent applications, the FishBase database (www.fishbase.org) has been used to supply
published information and the database has indeed been modified to incorporate a search
routine to extract information of use for ECOPATH modelling for any given ecosystem.
The ECOPATH approach differs from the other models being used at this workshop through
incorporation of ecosystem groups with the aim of covering all functional groupings A
consequence of this is also that it is required to incorporate information about the pelagic
fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand to get a more complete picture of the resource utilization and
to include that there is considerable interaction between the demersal and pelagic resources of
the Gulf.
ECOPATH requires input of the following information for each ecosystem group:

Biomass (in t/km);

Total mortality rate (= production/biomass) (year-1);

Consumption/biomass (year-1);

Diet composition;

Landings and discards by fleet (in t/km/year).

ECOPATH incorporates a basic bio-economic model based on the following information:

53

Cost (fixed and variable) of fishing by fleet;

Landing prices by ecosystem group and by fleet.

The basic ECOPATH model is used to give a static description of the ecosystem and to ensure
that the data material is sufficient and compatible, and that mass-balance is ensured. A series
of checks is made to ensure that the material is physiologically acceptable and that the result
is a plausible ecosystem description. The ECOPATH approach incorporates a series of
facilities to explicitly consider uncertainty in the data material, including a Bayesian Monte
Carlo approach, but these tools were not formally used at the workshop due to time
constraints.
Once an ECOPATH model has been parameterized and balanced using the ECOPATH with
ECOSIM software, it can be analysed in a temporal or spatial context in order to address
various management questions. The temporal analyses are performed using the ECOSIM
module of the software, while the spatial analyses rely on the ECOSPACE module, also
integrated in the software. Both of these modules use the underlying ECOPATH model for
the basic parameterization, while requiring only a fairly limited set of additional parameters
for their application.
The basics of ECOSIM consist of biomass dynamics expressed in the form of coupled
differential equations derived from the ECOPATH production equation given above.
ECOSIM bases the crucial assumption for prediction of consumption rates on a simple LotkaVolterra or mass action assumption, modified to consider foraging arena properties.
Following this, prey can be in states where it is either vulnerable to predation or not, for
instance when not feeding by hiding in crevices of coral reefs or inside a school. It is then
only subject to predation (available prey) when having left its shelter to feed (see Figure 6.1).

Predator
Bj
aijViBj
Unavailable prey
Bi - Vi

V(Bi-Vi)
vVi

Available prey
Vi

Figure 6.1 Simulation of flow between available (Vi) and unavailable (Bi - Vi) prey
biomass in ECOSIM. aij is the predator search rate for prey i, v is the exchange rate
between the vulnerable and not-vulnerable state. High v-values lead to top-down control
and low v-values to bottom-up control. Based on Walters et al. (1997)

To better represent ontogenetic shifts in ECOSIM groups can be split into juvenile and adult
components and ECOSIM then applies a Deriso-Schnute Delay-Difference Model to keep
track of the number that recruits from juvenile to adult stages and the numbers at age/size in
the adult groups (Walters et al., 2000).

54

The ECOSPACE model is a dynamic, spatial version of ECOPATH, incorporating all key
elements of ECOSIM (Walters et al., 1998). ECOSPACE dynamically allocates biomass
across a grid map while accounting for advection and movements, modified by whether a cell
is defined as preferred habitat or not, user-defined increased predation risk and reduced
feeding rate in non-preferred habitats, a level of fishing effort that is proportional, in each cell,
to the overall profitability of fishing in that cell. The distribution of fishing effort can also be
made sensitive to costs (e.g. sailing costs). Given its recent origin, only a few applications of
ECOSPACE have been published. Given its structure, ECOSPACE allows users to explore
the potential of using the introduction of protected areas as a tool to mitigate and perhaps
reverse various ecosystem effects of fishing.
The ECOPATH model developed at the workshop can be used to address five of the six
objectives put forward for the workshop to consider, see Tables 3.1 and 6.1, but due to time
constraints only few of the possible analyses were actually performed.
Table 6.1 Workshop objectives and a summary of how they can be addressed using
ecosystem modelling based on the ECOPATH with ECOSIM (EwE) approach using the
Gulf of Thailand model constructed during the workshop
Workshop
objectives

EwE approach for addressing objective

Ban of pushnet
fisheries

The EwE model incorporates six fleet categories, including

a pushnet category. The pushnet effort can be reduced in the
model and the ecosystem and economic consequences can
be quantified.

Expansion of nontrawl zones from 1.6

(3 km) to 3 nautical
miles

Can be simulated using the ECOSPACE module of EwE.

Requires information on spatial distribution and preferences
of ecosystem resources that were not available at the
workshop. Because of this and because of time constraints
the objective was not pursued at the workshop.

Impact of current
regulations re closed
seasons and areas

The ECOSPACE module of ECOSIM is explicitly

constructed to address questions of this type. However, due
to time constraints and lack of suitable information at the
workshop the objective was not pursued at the workshop.

Increase of minimum
mesh sizes to 2.5 or 3
cm

EwE at present does not explicitly consider size selectivity.

The objective can however be addressed by simulating
reduced fishing mortalities for the smaller sized fish species
(including the trashfish).

Reduction in the
numbers of trawlers
within categories

The EwE model constructed here includes six fleets

(trawlers, pair trawlers, pushnetters, beam trawlers, purse
seiners and other gears). Simulations reducing effort for
each of these can be run and the impacts quantified.
However, due to time constraints this was not pursued
during the workshop.

Effect of increase in
fishing license fees

Requires more detailed economic

incorporated in the ECOPATH approach.

55

analyses

than

6.3

THE GULF OF THAILAND ECOPATH MODEL

6.3.1

Ecosystem groupings and parameters

An ECOPATH model describing the 1973-state of the Gulf of Thailand and incorporating 40
functional groupings was constructed based on the model described by Christensen (1998),
but updated to incorporate more groups as well as detailed information on catch compositions,
notably for the pelagic fisheries, as well as CPUE estimates and biomass estimates from
swept-area trawl survey analysis. The forty groups included a marine mammal group, twentythree fish groups, four of which were split in adult and juvenile stages to make up a total of
twenty-seven fish groups, nine groups of invertebrates, plus two primary producers and a
detritus group.
The biomass of fish groups from research vessel data for 1973, the P/B ratios (or Z, total
mortality) of fish groups and the diet compositions of preys and predators were input as a
basic input of the ECOPATH model. ECOSIM can incorporate time series of biomass as well
as landings and fishing efforts by fleets. As for economic parameters, the ECOPATH model
uses fish market prices and fixed and variable costs by fleet as described above.
The total mortalities (Z) of fish groups input in the ECOPATH model were based on the Z
values in Christensen (1998), as were the consumption/biomass ratios. As part of the fitting to
time series in ECOSIM it was necessary to change (or rather reduce) some of the original
mortality rates. However, for most groups where changes were necessary the approach
adopted was not to use the total mortality rate as input, but instead use an EE value of 0.95
(corresponding to assuming that the ECOPATH model explains 95% of the mortality for the
groups in question) and then let the program estimate the mortality rate utilizing mass-balance
constraints.
The diet compositions for the consumers in the model were extracted from a series of
publications and FishBase (Intong, 1977, 1980 and 1982; Yamashita et al., 1987; Sribyatta,
1996; Suwanrumpha, 1995; Christensen, 1998; FishBase (www.fishbase.org, Froese and
Pauly, 2000).
6.3.2

Fleet composition and landings

The operations of demersal as well as pelagic fisheries were taken into account in this
ecosystem model study. A total of six fleets were defined, including otterboardtrawl (OBT),
pair trawl (PT), pushnet (PN), beam trawl (BT), purse seines (Thai PS, Luring PS) and other
gears (OG), including shellfish collecting, fish gillnet, shrimp gillnet, crab gillnet, bamboo
stake trap, squid light luring fishing, squid trap, fish trap, Acetes scooping, hook and line,
mackerel encircling gillnet and king mackerel gillnet.
Normally, it is necessary to specify the landings and discards of each fleet, but in this study
discards are not specified since fish that is not used for consumption is usually landed as
trash fish and hence it is assumed that there are no discards. Fleet-specific prices are used to
quantify the income by fleet. Based on fish prices, enforcement costs and other costs for each
fleet, the model can calculate the total rent by gear (total value of catch less fishing costs).
Costs are divided between fixed and variable costs, where the (fleet-level) fixed costs include

56

management and enforcement costs. The variable costs are categorized as effort-related costs
and sailing-related costs.
In 1997-1998 researchers of the Marine Fisheries Division, Department of Fisheries sampled
the trashfish compositions in the catches of the various fishing fleets (OBT, PT, PN, PS).
There is no trashfish caught by other gears (OG) due to the rather large mesh sizes used. Four
groups of the most abundant juvenile fish species were extracted from the trashfish catches of
each fleet as shown in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2 Percent of juvenile groups in catches of trash fish by otterboard trawlers (OBT), pair trawlers (PT)
and pushnetters (PN)
Ecosystem group \ Fleet

OBT

PT

PN

Juvenile small pelagics

1.5

23.7

0.6

Juvenile Carangids (e.g. horse mackerels)

1.1

4.6

5.0

Juvenile Saurida (lizard fish)

3.4

4.8

0.1

Juvenile Nemipterus (threadfin breams)

7.2

1.0

0.1

6.3.3

CPUEs and biomasses from research vessel surveys (PRAMONG 2 and 9)

Time series of CPUE of daytime fishing from the research vessels, PRAMONG 2 and
PRAMONG 9 were available for 1973-1995, except for 1990, 1992 and 1994, when the
vessels operated during nighttime. The nighttime data were not used in this study. These time
series of CPUE were also used as estimated relative biomass time series in the ECOSIM
temporal simulation.
The mean CPUE of the research vessel for 1973 was used to estimate biomass by the sweptarea method. The equations used to estimate the biomass were based on the following
parameters:
A = Total area = 101,384 km2
a = Swept area = D*h*X2 km2
where
D = V*t = 2.5*1 (trawling speed of 2.5 knots for 1 hour)
h = head rope length = 39 m
X2 = 0.5
result
a = (2.5*1.852)*(0.039*0.5) = 0.090255 km2

57

6.3.4

Landing data for commercial fleets

Landing data for the six commercial fleets: OBT, PT, PN, BT, PS and OG in 1973 were
distributed over the 40 ecosystem groupings in the ECOPATH model, including splitting up
of the trashfish to separately include catches of four groups of juvenile small fish, i.e., small
pelagics, Caranx, Saurida and Nemipterus (see Table 6.2). These four juvenile groups were
extracted from trashfish using the percentage composition of juvenile fish in the trashfish
catches of each gear with trashfish catches (OBT, PT, PN and PS). The landings by group
were divided by the total fishing area (304,000 km2) of the Gulf of Thailand to estimate
landings per unit area.
Relative time series of group-specific landings (t/km2/year) for the commercial fleets in the
Gulf of Thailand from the years 1973 to 1993 were used to compare with the predicted
catches from the temporal simulation of ECOSIM.
6.3.5

Effort data from the commercial fleets

The CPUE data from the research vessels PRAMONG 2 and PRAMONG 9 for the years
1973 to 1993 were used to standardize the fishing effort (operating hours) of the four
commercial fleets (OBT, PT, BT, PN) by dividing the total landings of each fleet by the
CPUE. Time series of relative fishing efforts (fishing hours) by fleet for the years 1973 to
1993 were estimated by setting the effort of the year 1973 as the standard.
The fishing efforts (number of fishing hours) of purse seine (PS) and other gears (OG) were
directly converted into relative fishing efforts by setting the effort of the year 1973 as the
standard. Time series of the relative fishing efforts for the years 1973 to 1993 were used as
database for the temporal simulation of ECOSIM.
The fishing efforts of purse seines and other gears were estimated by assuming a yearly
increase in effort of 3%, to create a 200% increase in effort over the twenty-year time series.
Table 6.3 Depth zones and distance from shoreline as input in the ECOSPACE module
of ECOPATH with ECOSIM

6.3.6

Zone

Water depth (m)

Distance from shoreline

(nm)

Distance from shoreline

(km)

0-6

0-1.6

0-3

6-9

1.6-3.0

3-5.5

9-20

3-12

5.5-22

20-50

12-35

22-65

>50

>35

>65

Fish prices

The fleet-specific market fish price for each group was estimated from landing prices for 1997
(Department of Fisheries, 1998). The fish group price is estimated by taking an average of all
sizes and the most abundant species was taken as a representative of each respective group
(Table 6.4).
58

Table 6.4 Fish group price (Baht per kg) by species for each fleet, 1997
Group Name

OBT

PT

BT

PN

PS

OG

Rastrelliger spp.

22.43

22.43

22.43

22.43

27.77

30.00

Scomberomorus

67.64

67.64

67.64

67.64

55.88

72.70

Carangidae
Pomfret
Small pelagic fish

15.46

15.46

15.46

15.46

17.21

103.47

103.47

103.47

103.47

151.99

15.94

15.94

15.94

15.94

7.50

7.50

False trevally

80.00

80.00

80.00

80.00

35.00

Large piscivores

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

Sciaenidae

17.50

17.50

17.50

17.50

Saurida spp.

10.90

10.90

10.90

10.90

Lutjanidae

54.70

54.70

54.70

54.70

Plectorhynchidae

54.70

54.70

54.70

54.70

Priacanthus spp.

10.67

10.67

10.67

10.67

Sillago

30.00

30.00

30.00

30.00

60.00

Nemipterus spp.

13.59

13.59

13.59

13.59

Ariidae

30.00

30.00

30.00

30.00

Rays

12.86

12.86

12.86

12.86

30.00

Sharks

17.00

17.00

17.00

17.00

20.00

Cephalopods

56.22

56.22

56.22

56.22

40.00

70.00

Shrimps

72.08

72.08

72.08

72.08

198.17

Crab, Lobster

44.06

44.06

44.06

44.06

70.00

2.55

2.55

2.55

2.55

4.00

Small demersal fish

17.00

17.00

17.00

17.00

Medium demersal piscivores

19.06

19.06

19.06

19.06

Medium demersal benthivores

29.70

29.70

29.70

29.70

Shellfish

7.98

7.98

7.98

7.98

Jellyfish

1.83

1.83

1.83

1.83

4.00

17.00

17.00

17.00

17.00

25.00

7.50

7.50

7.50

7.50

10.00

Coastal tuna

21.00

21.00

21.00

21.00

26.00

Sergestid shrimp

Trashfish

Sea cucumber
Seaweeds

14.85

14.85

14.85

14.85

15.00

Ponyfishes

2.55

2.55

2.55

2.55

5.00

Juvenile small pelagic

2.55

2.55

2.55

2.55

5.00

5.00

Juvenile Caranx

2.55

2.55

2.55

2.55

Juvenile Saurida

2.55

2.55

2.55

2.55

Juvenile Nemipterus

2.55

2.55

2.55

2.55

Source of data: Fishery Economic Division, Department of Fisheries, 1998

59

6.3.7

Operating costs and profit

Fixed Cost is included an institutional cost such as fishery research cost, management cost,
administrative cost and enforcement cost. The fixed cost of the Department of Fisheries of the
year 1998 was used in this estimation.
Fishing Cost The fishing costs were obtained from the surveys in the year 1998 of the
Fishery Economic Division, Department of Fisheries. This cost was split into Effort-related
costs and Sailing-related costs. The Sailing-related costs comprise gasoline and lubricants,
while the Effort-related costs were taken as the difference between total Fishing costs and the
Sailing-related costs.

Total Revenue is the profit of each fleet estimated by using the catch data based of the years
1993 and 1995 of the surveys of the Fishery Economic Division of the Department of
Fisheries (Table 6.5).
Table 6.5 Estimated costs and profit of each fleet in the ECOPATH model, estimated as
percentages of the value of the total landings by fleet
Fleet

Fixed Effort-related
costs (%)
costs (%)

Sailing-related
costs (%)

Profit
(%)

Otterboard trawl

1.2

49.2

35.4

14.2

Pair trawl

0.7

43.1

27.7

28.6

57.3

39.9

2.8

Pushnet

0.7

30.5

66.7

2.1

Purse seine

1.1

42.1

26.9

29.9

Other gears

1.4

56.5

40.7

1.4

Beam trawl

The assumptions on costs and revenue (and hence profit) are very important for the
subsequent optimizations using ECOSIM. When trying to optimize profit ECOSIM will tend
to increase effort for the most profitable fleets (here pair trawlers and purse seiners) and
reduce the effort for the less profitable fleets, (here beam trawl, pushnet and other gears). In
consequence, one should only use the model to study economic consequences of optimizing
fishing effort if one has reason to believe that the underlying economic parameters are sound.
6.3.8

Optimization of fishing effort

EwE includes an open loop policy exploration simulation, where a goal function for policy
optimization is defined on four weighted policy objectives:
1. Maximize fisheries rent;
2. Maximize social benefits;
3. Maximize mandated rebuilding of species;
4. Maximize ecosystem structure or health.
The first of these, maximizing profits, is based on calculating profits as the value of the catch
(catch * price, by species) less the cost of fishing (fixed + variable costs). Giving a high

60

weight to this objective often results in phasing out most fleets except the most profitable
ones as well as the wiping out of ecosystems groups competing with or preying on the more
valuable target species.
The second objective, maximizing social benefits, is expressed through the employment
supported by each fleet. The benefits are calculated as the number of jobs relative to the catch
value, these are fleet specific. Therefore social benefits are largely proportional to fishing
effort. Optimizing efforts often leads to even more extreme (with regards to overfishing)
fishing scenarios than optimizing for profit.
The maximization of mandated rebuilding of species (or guilds) is incorporated to capture that
external pressure (or legal decisions) may force policy makers to concentrate on preserving or
rebuilding the population of a given species in a given area. In ECOSIM this corresponds to
setting a threshold biomass (relative to the biomass in ECOPATH) for the species or group
and optimizing towards the fleet effort structure that will most effectively ensure this
objective.
The last objective included, maximizing ecosystem structure (or 'health') seeks to optimize the
abundance of long-lived groups in the ecosystem.
ECOSIM uses a non-linear optimization procedure to iteratively improve an objective
function by changing relative fishing rates. The optimization runs the ECOSIM model
repeatedly while varying these parameters and testing alternative parameter values so as to
locally approximate the objective function as a quadratic function of the parameter values and
using this approximation to make parameter update steps.
The objective function can be thought of as a multi-criterion objective, represented as a
weighted sum of the four objectives: economic, social, legal, and ecological. Assigning
alternative weights to these components is a way to see how they conflict or trade-off with
one another in terms of policy choice.
The fishing policy search routine described above estimates time series of relative fleet sizes
that would maximize a multi-criterion objective function. In ECOSIM, the relative fleet sizes
are used to calculate relative fishing mortality rates by each fleet type, assuming the mix of
fishing rates over biomass groups remains constant for each fleet type, i.e., reducing a fleet
type by some percentage results in the same percentage decrease in the fishing rates that it
causes on all the groups that it catches. However, density-dependent catchability effects can
be entered and if so reductions in biomass for a group may result in fishing rates remaining
high despite reductions in total effort by any/all fleets that harvest it. Despite this caveat, the
basic philosophy in the fishery policy search is that future management will be based on
control of relative fishing efforts by fleet type, rather than on multi-species quota systems.

61

6.4

APPROACH AND RESULTS

The ECOSIM model was fitted to the available time series data using the approach outlined in
Section 6.4.1.
6.4.1

Tuning ECOSIM to time series data11

The better the data, the better the model when evaluating how ECOSIM (or any other model
for that matter) behaves. Information about the underlying system is of crucial importance.
With time series data at disposal it becomes possible to tune the ECOSIM model so as to be in
agreement with the observed trends. While the experience level is still pretty low when it
comes to tuning, it is possible to give some guidelines on how to go about this process.
For the balancing, it is useful to think of how
growth and mortality are modelled in ECOSIM.
Mortality is considered as a linear function of
biomass (solid line in Figure 6.3), while the
population increase will be a non-linear function
of the biomass (dotted line in Figure 6.3). This
non-linear function corresponds to the
consumption times the gross food conversion
efficiency (from ECOPATH, where it is
estimated as base production over base
consumption). For a given biomass, the
population will increase or decrease depending
on the area between the lines. Therefore, the
growth (or the decline) of a given population
can be modified by changing either the mortality
rate or the food consumption. In turn, food
consumption is a function of complex predatorprey relationships modelled using a variable
vulnerability setting for top-down versus
bottom-up control.

Figure 6.3 The solid line shows the

predicted mortality calculated as Z.* B,
and the dotted line the population growth
estimated as a function of the
consumption. The area between the lines
can be considered surplus production.

The incorporation of this can be illustrated using a model of the Gulf of Thailand from
research vessel surveys (Christensen, 1998) using default settings throughout (most notably a
default vulnerability setting of 0.3 for all predator-prey interactions) produces the fit shown in
Figure 6.4 for the large piscivores group. During the time period covered the fishing
intensity increased with more than an order of magnitude. The model (solid line) shows a
clear decline in biomass over the time, while the CPUEs from the surveys (dots) indicate
much less decline over time. As described above, the Z values of the fish group can be
accessed and be used as input. Assuming that the survey data are correct the best fit of the
model is achieved when the solid line follows the dots.
During the time period, the fishing intensity increased with more than an order of magnitude.
The model (solid line in Figure 6.4) shows a clear decline in biomass over time, while the
11

From Christensen et al. 2000

62

CPUE from the surveys (dots) indicates much less decline over time. As described above, it
has some handles that can be used to manipulate how ECOSIM models the growth of the
population. Panel B thus shows the effect of raising the groups total mortality rate (P/B) from
0.8 year-1 to 1.2 year-1. The effect of this is to make the group more able to tolerate the grossly
increased fishing intensity over time, but it is also clear that a 50% increase in the initial
mortality rate setting is insufficient to optimize the fit over time. A second handle is therefore
invoked. The vulnerability setting affects how the consumption is influenced by changes in
predator and prey abundance. Using the default setting of 0.3 (Figure 6.4; panels A and B)
leads to mixing with top-down and bottom-up control. Changing the value to 0.01 for all prey
of the large piscivores makes the preys availability largely independent of changes in the
abundance. As the increased fishery leads to a reduction in the biomass of large piscivores
those remaining will have a good time (from a food perspective), their consumption rate will
increase and this will tend to counterbalance the increased fishing pressure. The result is
increasing resilience as can be seen from panels C and D in Figure 6.4. Comparing panels B
and C shows that the fit is better through incorporating bottom-up control, while panel D
shows the best fit of overall.
The panels E and F show the effect of using top-down control for the interactions between the
large piscivores and each of its prey groups. It is apparent that this does not result in any
improvement in fitting between model and CPUE, but just the opposite. Hence, in the present
case the best fit is obtained using the settings of Panel D.

Figure 6.4. Biomass over time (lines) for large piscivores in the Gulf of Thailand. P/B is the
production/biomass ratio (equals Z, the total mortality) for the group, while v is the
vulnerability setting describing how the group interacts with each of its prey groups. Dots
represent CPUE from surveys.

63

6.4.2

Results

The fit resulted in an overall sum of squares of deviations (observed predicted) of 117.9 for
the 21 time series available.
An overview of the fits obtained is given in Figure 6.5. A fairly reasonable fit is obtained for
most groups indicating that the model can reproduce the known history of the ecological
resources of the Gulf of Thailand.

Figure 6.5 Fit to time series for the ECOSIM model of the Gulf of Thailand, 1973-1993

To address the workshops first objective a simulation was run where the 21 years was with
fishing as described above and using the fitted model, see Figure 6.5. The simulation was
however extended to run 36 years with the fishing effort from the 21st year being carried
forward for the rest of the simulation period. The pushnet fishery was stopped after 21 years,
and results were then extracted after 35 years. The key results from this simulation are shown
in Table 6.6. The catch levels and overall value of the catch were found to decline marginally
if the pushnet was banned not indicating any direct benefit from the ban. This can be assumed
to reflect the overall very low catch level represented by the pushnet fleet. Banning a marginal
activity cannot be expected to have major overall effects.

64

An additional simulation was run to simulate the effect of a ban of the small mesh fishery (see
Table 6.6). Here, the pushnet fishery was stopped after 21 years, while the catch composition
for all gears was changed from the beginning of the simulation to exclude trashfish and
juvenile fish from the catches. The main result from the simulation is that the overall catch
level would decrease markedly (to 50%), while the value of the catch would only decrease
marginally (4%). Overall the reduced catches of small fish do not lead to any marked
improvement in the state of the system, indicating that such a measure is inadequate to change
the gross overfishing in the Gulf of Thailand.
Table 6.6 Simulation results in catch and value from the original situation to a stop of
the pushnet fishery and a stop extended to the small-mesh fishery
(resulting in stopping the trash-fish fishery and the fishery for four juvenile groups)
Catch (tonnes km-2year-1)

Value (103 Bahtkm-2year-1)

Original Pushnet Pushnet Original Pushnet Pushnet and

situation ban and small- situation ban
small-mesh
mesh ban
ban

Fleet

Otterboard trawl

2.15

2.21

0.725

30.3

31.4

28.2

Pair trawl

0.738

0.753

0.33

9.59

9.95

8.26

Beam trawl

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.102

0.105

0.106

Pushnet

0.113

4.01

Purse seine

0.304

0.304

0.313

5.65

5.64

5.78

Other gears

0.422

0.429

0.442

56.6

57.9

59.9

Total

3.74

3.70

1.812

106

105

102

Table 6.7 Simulation results for value, cost and rent in 1993 (at the end of the time series
simulation) for the Gulf of Thailand fisheries (unit is 103 Baht km-2 year-1).
The effort column gives the effort by fleet in 1993 relative to the effort in 1973
Value

Cost

Rent

Effort ratio
(1993/1973)

Otterboard trawl

31.1

31.6

-0.483

2.45

Pair trawl

9.99

14.7

-4.72

1.74

Beam trawl

0.096

0.08

0.016

0.09

Pushnet

3.96

3.41

0.55

1.51

Purse seine

5.63

3.42

2.21

1.69

Other gears

52.7

41.5

11.2

1.8

Total

104

94.7

8.81

Fleet

65

In the present preliminary study the optimization module of EwE introduced above was used
in a search for how to optimize the rent of the fisheries of the Gulf of Thailand, and to see
how the social factor (jobs in the sector) could be optimized. These simulations take the 1973
ecosystem as the starting point and seek to find the fishing effort for each of the six fleets that
would optimize rent and jobs, respectively.
Comparing the simulations based on the Gulf of Thailand time series (Table 6.7) with the run
seeking to optimize rent (Table 6.8) indicates that rent may be optimized by applying a
considerable lower fishing effort than actually observed in the Gulf. The simulation indicate
that rent would be optimized by lowering the effort level relative to the 1973 level for four of
the fleets, and increasing it for only pair trawls and other gears. Overall the profit is seen to
increase by approximately one third by using the optimized effort levels.
Table 6.8 Results for 1993 for optimization of rent for the Gulf of Thailand fisheries,
taking the 1973 situation as starting point and
applying a constant effort for each of the six fleets for 1973-1993.
The effort column gives the effort by fleet in 1993 relative to the effort in 1973
Fleet

Value

Cost

Rent

Effort ratio
(1993/1973)

thousand Baht/km-2 /year

Otterboard trawl

5.47

4.79

0.683

0.359

Pair trawl

12.2

12.0

0.194

1.41

Beam trawl

0.473

0.379

0.094

0.405

Pushnet

0.824

0.692

0.132

0.3

Purse seine

1.45

0.867

0.579

0.418

Other gears

47.3

37.4

9.99

1.62

Total

67.7

56.1

11.7

A second simulation was performed to optimize the social factor using the non-linear
optimization routine of EwE. This is done using as the value of the landings as proxy for the
employment created, and results in the effort levels indicated in Table 6.9. As can be seen the
results indicate that the maximum value of the landings that can be obtained from the Gulf of
Thailand is around 107,000 Baht/km2/year, or a few percentage points more than estimated
for 1993. This, however, comes with highly increased costs and indicates an unrealistic
situation where all fleets are unprofitable due to overfishing.

66

Table 6.9 Optimizing for value of the landings in the Gulf of Thailand,
taking the 1973 situation as starting point and
applying a constant effort for each of the six fleets for 1973-1993.
The effort column gives the effort by fleet in 1993 relative to the effort in 1973.
Value

Cost

Rent

Effort
(1993/1973)

-2

thousand Baht/km /year

Otterboard trawls

9.82

10.8

-1.01

0.832

Pair trawls

15.5

21.7

-6.18

2.556

Beam trawls

0.955

1.05

-0.097

1.111

Pushnets

0.869

0.934

-0.065

0.419

Purse seines

2.01

3.39

-1.39

1.681

Other gears

78.0

84.5

-6.45

3.672

Total

107

122

-15.2

Additional simulations could be run to address several of the other workshop objectives as
discussed earlier, but time did not allow this during the workshop. Also, the simulations
presented here are very preliminary and would need considerable more effort allocated to be
done in a more satisfactory manner. Yet, we conclude that ecosystem-based modelling is a
feasible approach to explore fisheries management issues in the Gulf of Thailand.

COMPARISON OF MODELLING FINDINGS BY THE THREE

GROUPS

The intended scope of the workshop was to analyse the effects of the following management
measures:
a)

Complete ban on pushnet fisheries within 3 years;

b)

Expansion of the non-trawl and non-pushnet zones from 1.6 nm (3 km) to 3 nm;

c)

The impact of current regulations concerning closed seasons and areas;

d)

Increase the minimum mesh size of shrimp trawl gear to 2.5 cm and finfish trawl gear to
3 cm;

e)

Reduction of the numbers of various categories of trawlers;

f)

Increase fishing licence fees.

Due to data constraints and limited time, not all of these measures could be subjected to a
detailed analysis. Data constraints prevented an analysis of an expansion of the non-trawl and
pushnet zones from 1.6 to 3 nm and of current regulations concerning closed areas and
seasons. Only management measures (a) and (e) could be subjected to a more detailed
analysis.

67

Table 6.9 Optimizing for value of the landings in the Gulf of Thailand,
taking the 1973 situation as starting point and
applying a constant effort for each of the six fleets for 1973-1993.
The effort column gives the effort by fleet in 1993 relative to the effort in 1973.
Value

Cost

Rent

Effort
(1993/1973)

-2

thousand Baht/km /year

Otterboard trawls

9.82

10.8

-1.01

0.832

Pair trawls

15.5

21.7

-6.18

2.556

Beam trawls

0.955

1.05

-0.097

1.111

Pushnets

0.869

0.934

-0.065

0.419

Purse seines

2.01

3.39

-1.39

1.681

Other gears

78.0

84.5

-6.45

3.672

Total

107

122

-15.2

Additional simulations could be run to address several of the other workshop objectives as
discussed earlier, but time did not allow this during the workshop. Also, the simulations
presented here are very preliminary and would need considerable more effort allocated to be
done in a more satisfactory manner. Yet, we conclude that ecosystem-based modelling is a
feasible approach to explore fisheries management issues in the Gulf of Thailand.

COMPARISON OF MODELLING FINDINGS BY THE THREE

GROUPS

The intended scope of the workshop was to analyse the effects of the following management
measures:
a)

Complete ban on pushnet fisheries within 3 years;

b)

Expansion of the non-trawl and non-pushnet zones from 1.6 nm (3 km) to 3 nm;

c)

The impact of current regulations concerning closed seasons and areas;

d)

Increase the minimum mesh size of shrimp trawl gear to 2.5 cm and finfish trawl gear to
3 cm;

e)

Reduction of the numbers of various categories of trawlers;

f)

Increase fishing licence fees.

Due to data constraints and limited time, not all of these measures could be subjected to a
detailed analysis. Data constraints prevented an analysis of an expansion of the non-trawl and
pushnet zones from 1.6 to 3 nm and of current regulations concerning closed areas and
seasons. Only management measures (a) and (e) could be subjected to a more detailed
analysis.

67

The Gordon-Schaefer/Fox working group accomplished a fairly complete analysis, within

the limitations of surplus production modelling. The use of a single-species surplus
production model for the multi-fleet and multi-species fisheries of the Gulf of Thailand allows
only for rough estimates of optimal fleet sizes and fishing effort. The availability of long time
series of data on catch and effort and independent resources abundance estimates through
regular trawling assessment surveys favoured this modelling approach.
The findings of this working group indicated that current (1997) fishing effort in the demersal
trawl and pushnet fisheries is more than double the level of fishing effort required to
maximize resource rent. The working group estimated the potential annual resource rent to be
in the order of Baht 7,200 million (approximately US $ 192 million) against a current
negative rent of Baht 800 million. A reduction in fishing effort and fleet size of that
magnitude would result in a dramatic drop in employment in the fisheries of more than 40,000
fishermen, many of whom are immigrants from Myanmar. The findings of this working group
are in line with those of a mid-1980 bio-economic analysis using the same model and tally
broadly with the results of the other two working groups.
Much time of the BEAM 5 working group was spent on compiling and estimating the input
data to allow for a complex modelling exercise involving nine species, all representing a
major species group), eight fleets and two areas (i.e. inshore in a depth range of <20 m and
offshore >20 m). The model simulations produced valuable insights into the effects of a ban
of the pushnet fisheries and a reduction in trawling effort.
The results (see Table 5.30) indicated that the complete withdrawal of pushnetters from the
demersal fisheries would increase annual net economic benefits by about Baht 410 million
(US $ 11 million). Additional gains would occur from a reduction of excessive and wasteful
trawling effort to as low as one half of the current level. The simulation results indicate that
this would increase the annual net economic benefit by an additional Baht 1.8 billion (US $
48 million).
In comparison with the Gordon-Schaefer model, the estimated economic gain from a fleet
reduction was less in the case of the BEAM 5 simulation for two reasons. Firstly, in the
BEAM 5 simulation, fishing costs were proportioned in accordance with the ratio between the
simulated and the actually observed catch. Secondly, the implicit fishing mortality value (F)
used in a Gordon-Schaefer assessment is always smaller than 1 and thus much lower than the
Fs used in the BEAM 5 application. As a consequence of the high F and M values, BEAM 5
may considerably underestimate the gains from a reduction of fishing effort. The validity of
the high F and M values should be subjected to future detailed assessments. Depending on the
outcome of such assessments, the BEAM 5 exercise should be repeated and further refined.
The ECOPATH working group made the most extensive use of the available long time
series of data on catch and effort and of ecological information. ECOPATH (with ECOSIM)
simulates predator-prey relationships through a mass balance approach. An ECOPATH model
was constructed to represent 1973, the first year for which there was a fairly complete
coverage of standardized trawl surveys, landings and effort data. Changes in relative effort for
each of the six fleets considered during the period 1973-1993 were then used to drive the
model over the time period. The tuning of the model to fit the observed data set suggested that
mortality rates are probably lower than those estimated for the BEAM 5 application.

68

The ECOPATH/ECOSIM modelling results indicated that a complete ban of pushnet fishing
would have minor effects on biomass, catches and profits. This can be assumed to reflect the
overall very low catch level represented by the pushnet fleet. Banning a marginal activity
cannot be expected to have major overall effects.
Avoiding the harvest of juveniles by banning all small mesh sizes would lead to a marked
decrease in overall catch level (to 50%), while the value of the catch would only decrease
marginally (4%). Overall the reduced catches of small fish would not lead to any marked
improvement in the state of the system, indicating that such a measure is inadequate to change
the gross overfishing in the Gulf of Thailand. Time constraints did not allow the use of
ECOSPACE to analyse some of the other proposed management measures, such as an
expansion of the non-trawl zone.
The results of the ECOPATH analyses tally broadly with those of the Gordon-Schaefer and
BEAM 5 models and indicate gains from a reduction in fishing effort. Indeed, all models
indicated a severe over fishing of the demersal resources in the Gulf of Thailand.
This has been the first time that concurrently three different modelling approaches were
applied to the Thai demersal fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand (and perhaps to any other
fishery). The outcome has proven the worth of such a combined effort. However, in a future
similar exercise, greater care should be taken in ensuring the consistency of data sets applied
in all three modelling exercises. This would certainly require the allocation of more
preparation and workshop time to do justice to the complexity of the task.
It should also be noted that one of the objectives of the workshop was to train the participants
in the use of the different models. It was also the first application of BEAM 5 in the tropics.
Therefore, it is likely that a re-assessment and a revision of the results of this workshop will
be required in the near future. Following the practice in other large management areas, such
revisions should preferably be undertaken annually or bi-annually, taking into account new
data and information and making better use of the new knowledge gained by the participants.

69

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS AT THE POLICY DIALOGUE

MEETING

The Policy-Dialogue Meeting on 9 June offered the opportunity to present outcome of the
three modelling approaches to senior staff of the Thai Department of Fisheries, district-level
fisheries officers and representatives of the Thai fishermens associations representing
primarily owners of industrial fishing vessels and to discuss the results.
The Policy Dialogue Meeting was opened by Dr Oopatham Pawaputanon, Deputy-Director
General, DOF. The meeting was conducted in Thai. The combined results of the bioeconomics workshop were presented by Dr Somying Piumsombun, Senior Economic
Advisor, DOF. This was followed by interventions by Mr Somsak Chullasorn, Senior Marine
Fisheries Advisor, DOF, and representatives of the Thai Fishermens Associations. Dr
Veravat Hongskul, FAO Senior Regional Fisheries Officer, RAP, elaborated on management
policy options. The deliberations were chaired by Dr Anant Saraya, Director, Marine
Fisheries Division in the morning and Mr Somsak Chullasorn in the afternoon.
There was unanimous agreement on the precarious resources situation in the Gulf of Thailand
and the excessive levels of fishing effort that had prevailed during the last at least two to three
decades. Attempts had been made, unsuccessfully, to reduce the number of trawlers and to
abolish motorized pushnetters in Thai fisheries. Closed areas and seasons were not effectively
followed up and were even violated with political support. There was wide recognition that
the necessary political commitment had often been missing to make management work
successfully in the past. Even in recent years there had been situations where local political
influence flouted desirable management measures such as the closed season during the
mackerel spawning season.
While some, perhaps justified doubts, were expressed about the quantitative findings of the
three models, in particular by the representatives of the fishermens associations, there was
unanimous support for strengthening the management of the demersal fisheries in the Gulf of
Thailand. Various suggestions were made towards this end including:

Improved information exchange and dialogue between government agencies, especially

DOF staff and the fishing industry and fishermens associations;

Immediate freeze of the number of trawlers and banning of pushnet fishing;

Need to legalize, the significant number of unlicensed and unrecorded fishing vessels or to
address this problem otherwise;

Adequate compensation to pushnet fishermen who are ready to voluntarily leave the
fishery under an acceptable retirement scheme;

Definition of the inshore zone according to both distance from the shore as well as water
depth and extension of the inshore protected fishing zone from the current 3 km to 5-10
km in support of small-scale coastal fisheries;

Enlargement of the trawl cod-end mesh size to 4.5 cm and the prohibition of fishing and
marketing of undersized species of commercial importance;

70

Continuation of deployment of artificial reefs in inshore areas as means to create fish

shelters and obstacles against trawling;

Transfer, wherever possible, excess fishing capacity to outside the Gulf of Thailand; it
was recognized that this option was seriously constrained by the lack of under-exploited
fish stocks in the region including the high seas;

Strict implementation of current fisheries management rules and regulation and

strengthening of monitoring, control and surveillance;

Strengthening of the research capacity of the DOF on resource monitoring and promotion
of an ecosystem approach in fisheries management;

Revision and modernization of the Thai fisheries legislation and delegation of more
management authority to lower administrative levels.

The meeting was closed by Mr Somsak Chullasorn who expressed the gratitude of the
Government of Thailand for the support extended to the very valuable workshop and policy
dialogue by the FAO/Norway FISHCODE Project, the FAO Regional Office for Asia and the
Pacific and ICLARM.

71

APPENDIX A
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE BIO-ECONOMIC MODELLING WORKSHOP
Thai demersal fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand
31 May - 8 June 2000
Melia Hua Hin hotel, Hua Hin, Thailand
Name and Position
Guests
Dr Anant Saraya
Director

Institute and Address

Marine Fisheries Division, Department of Fisheries

Kasetsart University Campus
Chatuchak, Bangkok, 10900
Tel. (02) 5620542
Fax (02) 5620543

Mr Watana Leelapat
Director

Fisheries Economic Division, Department of Fisheries

Kasetsart University Campus
Chatuchak, Bangkok, 10900
Tel. (02) 9406560
Fax (02) 9406560

Mr Jate Pimonjinda
Director

Andaman Marine Fisheries Development Center

Maung, Phuket 8300
Tel. (076) 391515
Fax (076) 391139

Mr Monton Eiamsa-ard
Director

Southern Marine Fisheries Development Center

79/1 Wichianchom, Boryang, Songkla 90000
Tel. (074) 325814
Fax (074) 312495

Mr Vitoon Pountipakorn
Acting Head Provincial
Fisheries Office

Fisheries Provincial Office

Maung, Prachuap Kiri Khan 77000
Tel. (032) 603608
Fax (032) 602010

Participants
Mr Somsak Chullasorn
Senior Marine Fisheries Advisor

Academic Office, Department of Fisheries

Kasetsart University Campus
Chatuchak, Bangkok, 10900
Tel. (02) 5620542
Fax (02) 5620543
E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Somying Piumsombun
Academic Office, Department of Fisheries
Senior Fisheries Economic Advisor Kasetsart University Campus, Chatuchak
Bangkok 10900
Tel. (02) 9406528
Fax (02) 5620561
E-mail: [email protected]

72

Name and Position

Mr Pongpat Boonchuwong
Senior Economist

Dr Mala Supongpan
Senior Biologist

Mr Wannakiat Thubthimsang
Senior Biologist

Ms Atchara Vibhasiri
Senior Biologist

Institute and Address

Fisheries Economic Division, Department of Fisheries

Kasetsart University Campus, Chatuchak
Bangkok, 10900
Tel. (02) 5620581
Fax (02) 9406560
E-mail: [email protected]
Bangkok Marine Fisheries Development Center
49 Soi Prarajviriyaporn, Prapadeang
Samutprakarn 10130
Tel. (02) 8167636-38 ext. 14
Fax (02) 8167634
Marine Fisheries Division, Department of Fisheries
Kasetsart University Campus, Chatuchak
Bangkok, 10900
Tel. (02) 5620542
Fax (02) 5620543
Bangkok Marine Fisheries Development Center
49 Soi Prarajviriyaporn, Prapadeang
Samutprakarn 10130
Tel. (02) 8167636-38 ext.22
Fax (02) 8167634

Ms Pismorn Isara
Senior Biologist

Bangkok Marine Fisheries Development Center

49 Soi Prarajviriyaporn, Prapadeang
Samutprakarn 10130
Tel. (02) 8167636-38
Fax (02) 8167634

Mr Wirat Sanitmajjaro
Biologist

Southern Marine Fisheries Development Center

79/1 Wichianchom, Boryang, Songkla 90000
Tel. (074) 325814
Fax (074) 312495

Mr Kanit Chuapun
Biologist

Chumporn Marine Fisheries Development Center

Moo 2, Paknum, Muang, Chumporn 86120
Tel. (077) 522006
Fax (077) 522006
Bangkok Marine Fisheries Development Center
49 Soi Prarajviriyaporn, Prapadeang
Samutprakarn 10130
Tel. (02) 8167636-38
Fax (02) 8167634
Southern Marine Fisheries Development Center
79/1 Wichianchom, Boryang, Songkla 90000
Tel. (074) 325814
Fax (074) 312495

Ms Chongkolnee Chamchang
Biologist

Ms Pakjuta Khaemakorn
Biologist

73

Name and Position

Ms Piyawan Maila-iad
Biologist

Ms Jintana Jindalikit
Biologist

Ms Ratanawalee Phoonsawat
Biologist

Ms Waraporn Dechboon
Biologist
Mr Suthep Juala-ong
Biologist

Institute and Address

Bangkok Marine Fisheries Development Center

49 Soi Prarajviriyaporn, Prapadeang
Samutprakarn 10130
Tel. (02) 8167636-38
Fax (02) 8167634
Bangkok Marine Fisheries Development Center
49 Soi Prarajviriyaporn, Prapadeang
Samutprakarn 10130
Tel. (02) 8167636-38
Fax (02) 8167634
Bangkok Marine Fisheries Development Center
49 Soi Prarajviriyaporn, Prapadeang
Samutprakarn 10130
Tel. (02) 8167636-38
Fax (02) 8167634
Southern Marine Fisheries Development Center
79/1 Wichianchom, Boryang, Songkla 90000
Tel. (074) 325814
Fax (074) 312495
Eastern Marine Fisheries Development Center
Pae, Muang, Rayong 21160
Tel. (038) 651764
Fax (038) 651763

Ms Amporn Lawapong
Economist

Fisheries Economic Division, Department of Fisheries

Kasetsart University Campus, Chatuchak
Bangkok, 10900
Tel. (02) 5620581
Fax (02) 9406560
E-mail: [email protected]

Ms Wacherapranee Claithong
Economist

Fisheries Economic Division, Department of Fisheries

Kasetsart University Campus, Chatuchak
Bangkok, 10900
Tel. (02) 5620581
Fax (02) 9406560
E-mail: [email protected]

Ms Patchareenart Charoenwuttichai Fisheries Economic Division, Department of Fisheries

Kasetsart University Campus, Chatuchak
Statistician
Bangkok, 10900
Tel. (02) 5798208
Fax (02) 9406560
E-mail: [email protected]

74

Name and Position

Ms Molrudee Nipanpong
Statistician

Ms Wasana Khamchompoo
Statistician

Institute and Address

Fisheries Economic Division, Department of Fisheries

Kasetsart University Campus, Chatuchak
Bangkok, 10900
Tel. (02) 5798208
Fax (02) 9406560
E-mail: [email protected]
Fisheries Economic Division, Department of Fisheries
Kasetsart University Campus, Chatuchak
Bangkok, 10900
Tel. (02) 5798208
Fax (02) 9406560
E-mail: [email protected]

Ms Pichaya Angsukiathavorn
Statistician

Fisheries Economic Division, Department of Fisheries

Kasetsart University Campus, Chatuchak,
Bangkok, 10900
Tel. (02) 5620580
Fax (02) 9406560
E-mail: [email protected]

Ms. Jiraporn Linlapo

Statistician

Fisheries Economic Division, Department of Fisheries

Kasetsart University Campus, Chatuchak
Bangkok, 10900
Tel. (02) 5620580
Fax (02) 9406560
E-mail: [email protected]
Faculty of Economics, Kasetsart University, Chatuchak
Bangkok 10900
Tel. (02) 5613467 ext. 126
Fax (02) 5799579
E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Ruangrai Tokrisna
Associate Professor

Ms Ponchamarn Wongsarga
Fisheries Socio-economic Officer

Mr Rolf Willmann
Senior Fishery Planning Officer

Mr Per Sparre
Senior Scientist

Scio-Economics Section, SEAFDEC/TD

P.O.Box 97, Phrasamutchedi, Samut Prakarn 10290
Tel. (02) 4258040 45
Fax. (02) 4255861
E-mail: [email protected]
Fishery Policy and Planning Division
Fishery Department
FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla-00100 Rome
Tel. (36-6) 57053408
Fax. (38-6) 57056500
E-mail: [email protected]
Danish Institute for Fisheries Research
Charlottenlund Castle
Charlottenlund DK 2920
Denmark
E-mail: [email protected]

75

Name and Position

Dr Villy Christensen
Senior Scientist, ICLARM, and
Adj. Professor UBC

Dr Mahfuzuddin Ahmed

Institute and Address

ICLARM, Penang, Malaysia and
UBC Fisheries Centre
2204 Main Mall
Vancouver BC
Canada V6T 1Z4
Tel (1) 604 822 5751
Fax (1) 801 459 9734
E-mails: [email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.ecopath.org
ICLARM, P.O.Box 500, GPO. 10670
Penang, Malaysia
Tel. (604) 6414623
Fax. (604) 6434463
E-mail: [email protected]

Ms Bing Santos

ICLARM, P.O.Box 500, GPO. 10670

Penang, Malaysia
Tel. (604) 6414623
Fax. (604) 6434463
E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Chu Tien Vinh

Assistant Director

Assessment of the Living Marine Resources

c/o Research Institute of Marine Fisheries
170 Le Lai Street
25000 Haiphong
Vietnam
Assessment of the Living Marine Resources,
Vietnam

Dr Nguyen Viet Vinh

Dr Heiko Seilert
Fisheries Officer

Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

Maliwan Mansion
Phra Atit Road, Bangkok 10200
Tel. (02) 2822445
Fax. (02) 2817844

Ms Tan Geik Hong

Planning Officer

Fishery Policy and Planning Division

Department of Fisheries
Wisma Tani, Jalan Sultan Salahuddin
50628 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel. (03) 2954607
Fax. (03) 2910305
E-mail: [email protected]
College of Economics and Trade, Shanghai Fisheries
University, 334 Jun Gong Road
Shanghai China 200090
Tel. (021) 65710307-8
Fax. 65684287
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr Zhang Xiang-guo
Dean Professor

76

Name and Position

Observers
Mr Somporn Boonkerd
Biologist

Ms Jinda Nargrupkrap
Biologist

Mr Pormsak Phungmarg
Biologist

Institute and Address

Bangkok Marine Fisheries Development Center

49 Soi Prarajviriyaporn, Prapadeang
Samutprakarn 10130
Tel. (02) 8167636-38
Fax (02) 8167634
Bangkok Marine Fisheries Development Center
49 Soi Prarajviriyaporn, Prapadeang
Samutprakarn 10130
Tel. (02) 8167636-38
Fax (02) 8167634
Bangkok Marine Fisheries Development Center
49 Soi Prarajviriyaporn, Prapadeang
Samutprakarn 10130
Tel. (02) 8167636-38
Fax (02) 8167634

Ms Plaiwalai Nuchmorn
Biologist

Andaman Marine Fisheries Development Center

Maung, Phuket 8300
Tel. (076) 391515
Fax (076) 391139

Mr Somchai Vibunpan
Biologist

Southern Marine Fisheries Development Center

79/1 Wichianchom, Boryang, Songkla 90000
Tel. (074) 325814
Fax (074) 312495

Ms Charupa Seng-erd
Biologist

Southern Marine Fisheries Development Center

79/1 Wichianchom, Boryang, Songkla 90000
Tel. (074) 325814
Fax (074) 312495
Chumporn Marine Fisheries Development Center
Moo 2, Paknum, Muang, Chumporn 86120
Tel. (077) 522006
Fax (077) 522006
Chumporn Marine Fisheries Development Center
Moo 2, Paknum, Muang, Chumporn 86120
Tel. (077) 522006
Fax (077) 522006

Mr Lertchai Podapon
Biologist
Ms Jinda Phetkamnerd
Biologist
Ms Anyanee Yemrungruang
Biologist

Bangkok Marine Fisheries Development Center

49 Soi Prarajviriyaporn, Prapadeang
Samutprakarn 10130
Tel. (02) 8167636-38
Fax (02) 8167634

77

Name and Position

Ms. Suvimol Sanalak

Ms Ruamporn Sirirattrakul
Senior Statistician

Institute and Address

Marine Fisheries Division, Department of Fisheries

Kasetsart University Campus
Chatuchak, Bangkok, 10900
Tel. (02) 5620542
Fax (02) 5620543
National Statistical Office, Larn Luang Road
Bangkok 10100
Tel. (02) 2810333 ext.1803
Fax.(02) 2818617

Ms Jerapa Varadul
Senior Statistician

National Statistical Office, Larn Luang Road

Bangkok 10100
Tel. (02) 2810333 ext.1803
Fax.(02) 2818617

Ms Sangtian Aujimankul
Instructor

Faculty of Fisheries, Kasetsart University

Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900
Tel. (02) 5611947
Fax. (02) 5795579
Faculty of Fisheries, Kasetsart University
Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900
Tel. (02) 5611947
Fax. (02) 5795579

Dr Varunthat Dulyapurk
Instructor
Ms Kulapa Supongpan
Graduate Student
Dr Steen Christensen
Project Manager

Faculty of Economics, Kasetsart University, Chatuchak

Bangkok 10900

Mr Frank Riget

Assessment of the Living Marine Resources Project

Vietnam

Assessment of the Living Marine Resources Project

Vietnam

78

APPENDIX B
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE POLICY DIALOGUE MEETING
Management of the demersal fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand
9 June 2000
Melia Hua Hin hotel, Hua Hin, Thailand
Name and Position

Dr Oopatham Pawaputanon
Deputy Director General

Mr Somsak Chullasorn
Senior Marine Fisheries Advisor
Dr Somying Piumsombun
Senior Fisheries Economic Advisor

Institute and Address

Department of Fisheries
Kasetsart University Campus
Chatuchak Bangkok, 10900
Tel. (02)5620526
Fax. (02) 5620531
See Appendix A
See Appendix A

Dr Anant Saraya
Director

See Appendix A

Mr Watana Leelapat
Director

See Appendix A

Mr Arthit Namasonti
Director

Fishery Planning and Policy

Department of Fisheries
Kasetsart University Campus
Chatuchak Bangkok 10900
Tel. (02) 5620539
Fax: (02) 5620531
See Appendix A

Mr Jate Pimonjinda
Director
Mr Pongpat Boonchuwong
Senior Economist

See Appendix A

Dr Mala Supongpan
Senior Biologist

See Appendix A

Mr Wannakiat Thubthimsang
Senior Biologist
Ms Atchara Vibhasiri
Senior Biologist
Ms Pismorn Isara
Senior Biologist
Mr Wirat Sanitmajjaro
Biologist

See Appendix A

Mr Kanit Chuapun
Biologist

See Appendix A

See Appendix A
See Appendix A
See Appendix A

79

Name and Position

Institute and Address

Ms Chongkolnee Chamchang
Biologist

See Appendix A

Ms Pakjuta Khaemakorn
Biologist

See Appendix A

Ms Piyawan Maila-iad
Biologist

See Appendix A

Ms Jintana Jindalikit
Biologist

See Appendix A

Ms Ratanawalee Phoonsawat
Biologist
Ms Waraporn Dechboon
Biologist

See Appendix A

Mr Suthep Juala-ong
Biologist

See Appendix A

Ms Amporn Lawapong
Economist

See Appendix A

Ms Wacherapranee Claithong
Economist
Ms Patchareenart Charoenwuttichai
Statistician
Ms Molrudee Nipanpong
Statistician
Ms Wasana Khamchompoo
Statistician

See Appendix A

Ms Pichaya Angsukiathavorn
Statistician

See Appendix A

Ms Jiraporn Linlapo
Statistician
Mr Vitoon Pountipakorn
Acting Head Provincial Fisheries
Office

See Appendix A

Mr Tana Yingchareon
Biologist

Fishery Engineering Division

Department of Fisheries
Kasetsart University Campus
Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900
Tel. (02) 5798569
Fax. (02) 5794704

See Appendix A

See Appendix A
See Appendix A
See Appendix A

See Appendix A

80

Name and Position

Dr Chardsak Verapat
Biologist

Institute and Address

Fishery Engineering Division

Department of Fisheries
Kasetsart University Campus
Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900
Tel. (02) 5795594
Fax. (02) 5798567

Ms Nitaya Raksaraj
Fishery Officer

Ms Narisa Nusorn
Fishery Officer

Fisheries Provincial Office

Maung, Prachuap Kiri Khan 77000
Tel. (032) 603608
Fax (032) 602010
Fisheries Provincial Office
Maung, Prachuap Kiri Khan 77000
Tel. (032) 603608
Fax (032) 602010

Mr Anurug Kitpermkiat
Fishery Officer

Fisheries Provincial Office

Maung, Prachuap Kiri Khan 77000
Tel. (032) 603608
Fax (032) 602010

Mr Paitoon Chantong
Fishery Officer

Hua-Hin Fisheries Office

Prachuap Kiri Khan 77110
Tel. (032) 511025

Mr Prasit Phumana
Fishery Officer

Thup-Sakae Fisheries Office

Prachuap Kiri Khan 77130
Tel. (032) 671721

Ms Jariya Suthichaiya
Policy and Planning Officer

Office of Agricultural Economics

Kasetsart University Campus
Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900
Office of Agricultural Economics
Kasetsart University Campus
Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900
Tel. (02) 2816140
Fish Market Organization
Saphan-pla, Yanawa
Bangkok 10120
Tel. (02) 2124494

Mr Chareonwit Sanaeha
Policy and Planning Officer

Mr Akachai Sukhotu
Assistant Director

Dr Kungwan Juntarashote
Associate Professor

Faculty of Fisheries
Kasetsart University
Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900
Tel. (02) 5611947
Fax. (02) 5795579

Dr Chareon Nitithumyong
Instructor

Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn

University
Bangkok

81

Name and Position

Institute and Address

Ms Ponchamarn Wongsarga
Fisheries Socio-economic Officer

See Appendix A

Mr Rolf Willmann
Senior Fishery Planning Officer

See Appendix A

Dr Veravat Hongskul
Senior Fishery Officer

FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

Maliwan Mansion, Phra Atit Road
Bangkok 10200
Tel. (02) 2817844 ext.176
Fax. (02) 2817844
See Appendix A

Dr Heiko Seilert
Fisheries Officer
Mr Per Sparre
Senior Scientist
Ms Tan Geik Hong
Planning Officer

See Appendix A

Mr Zhang Xiang-guo
Dean Professor

See Appendix A

Mr Kumpol Shotepunyo
Executive Committee

Fisheries Association of Thailand

Ms Kanokporn Saprasert
Manager

Fisheries Association of Thailand

Ms Waraporn Paeprasert
Officer
Mr Songyos Engsake
President
Mr Suthin Che-paknum
Trawl Fishing Representative

Fisheries Association of Thailand

Prachuap Kiri Khan 77110
Hua Hin Fisheries Association
Hua-Hin
Samut Sakorn Fisheries Association
Muang, Samut Sakorn 74000

Mr Narin Boonruam
Trawl Fishing Representative

Samut Songkram Fisheries Association

Muang, Samut Songkram 75000

Mr Thumrongsak Ruangrat
Trawl Fishing Representative

Samut Prakran Fisheries Association

Muang, Samut Songkram 75000

Mr Sompong Yimmarg
Pushnet Fishing Representative
Mr Nakul Pongpanit
Pushnet Fishing Representative

Don Sak, Surat Thani 84220

See Appendix A

Don Sak, Surat Thani 84220

82

APPENDIX C
OPENING REMARKS
by
Mr.Somsak Chullasorn
Senior Marine Fishery Advisor
Department of Fisheries
31 May 2000, Melia Hua Hin Hotel, Hua Hin, Thailand

Distinguished Guests
Ladies and Gentlemen,
On behalf of the Thai Department of Fisheries, I would like to express our great pleasure to
welcome our participants from abroad both from countries far away as well as from our
neighboring countries to the Bio-Economic Modelling Workshop on the Thai Demersal
Fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand.
This workshop is of particular importance for the future of the demersal fisheries in the Gulf
of Thailand. Most of you are aware of the serious biological and economic conditions, which
these fisheries are facing. The level of resources exploitation has increased significantly
during the last three decades. This has resulted not only in a substantial increase in fish
harvest but also in a large decline of the Catch per Unit of Effort. As a consequence, the
economic performance of the fisheries has been suffered and conflicts among different groups
of fishermen have increased. There is definitely a need to rationalize these fisheries activities
and the findings from this workshop are expected to be valuable to guide the Department of
Fisheries in this task.
One area of priority is to find a means of reducing the trawling effort in the Gulf of Thailand.
Such a fleet reduction or decommissioning programme will have social and economic
implications that require a careful analysis.
Another priority of the Department of Fisheries is to effectively curb and ban push-net fishing
in the entire Gulf of Thailand. This was subject of recent discussion in the National Fisheries
Policy Committee that re-iterated the importance of expeditious cessation of push-net fishing.
This workshop offers a unique opportunity for the Department of Fisheries to analyse, in an
integrated fashion, the biological and socio-economic effects of the transition to more
responsible fisheries. This is in line with our commitment to implement the FAO Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the International Plan of Action on the Management of
Fishing Capacity. In this endeavour, we are very glad to be able to draw upon the expertise
and experience from all of you.
This workshop benefits greatly from the financial and technical support of FAO, especially its
FAO/NORWAY FISHCODE Project, and the support of ICLARM. The workshop also
benefits from prior work done by the Danish Institute of Fisheries Research in the area of bioeconomic modelling and software development.

83

During your stay in this beautiful part of the Gulf of Thailand, Hua Hin/ where there are a
variety of tourist attractions, you should take the opportunity to observe some of our rich
fisheries traditions by yourself and enjoy its culinary fruits.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I wish you a very fruitful workshop and a pleasant stay in Kingdom of Thailand. Finally, on
behalf of the Department of Fisheries and the Thai Royal Government, I would like to
formally declare open this workshop.
Thank You

84

APPENDIX D
AGENDA BIO-ECONOMIC MODELLING WORKSHOP
Thai Demersal Fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand
31 May - 8 June 2000

Wednesday 31 May

9.00

Opening (Mr Somsak Chullasorn)

9.20

Introduction of workshop objectives & agenda and participants

(Mr Rolf Willmann and Mr Pongpat Boonchuwong)

9.40

An overview of the regional fisheries management in Asia

(Dr Mahfuzuddin Ahmed)

10.45

An overview of the fisheries management issues in the Gulf of Thailand and of

existing and planned fisheries management regulations (Mr Somsak
Chullasorn and Dr Mala Supongpan)

11.30

Introduction to bio-economic modelling

14.45

The Gordon-Schaefer model (Dr Mahfuzuddin Ahmed)

Past application of the Gordon-Schaefer model to the Gulf of Thailand (Dr

Rungrai Tokrisna)

Thompson and Bell model: the BEAM 5 model (Mr Per Sparre and Mr
Rolf Willmann]

ECOPATH model (Dr Villy Christensen)

An overview of the available data on the fisheries of the Gulf of Thailand

Biological and ecological data (e.g. time series of catches, catch

composition, CPUE, estimates of stock sizes and of F and M, changes of
fish habitats, data gaps) (Dr Mala Supongpan)

Technological data (e.g. historical evolution of fishing methods, number

and sizes of vessels and gear, on-board equipment, modes of fishing
operations, types and numbers of fish processing firms) (Mr Pongpat
Boonchuwong)

Economic and social data (e.g. time series of fish prices, numbers of
fishermen, fixed and variable harvesting costs, fixed and variable fish
processing costs, crew income, return on investment of different vessel

85

types and vessel sizes, fishing subsidies, factors affecting labour mobility;
fisheries management costs) (Mr Pongpat Boonchuwong and Dr Somying
Piumsombun)

Institutional data (e.g. fisheries administration; monitoring, control and

surveillance capacity) (Dr Somying Piumsombun)

Thursday, 1 June

9.00

10.45

Design of bio-economic models for the demersal fisheries of the Gulf of

Thailand

A Gordon-Schaefer composite global model

BEAM 5 model

Design of bio-economic models for the demersal fisheries of the Gulf of

Thailand (continuing)

13.30

ECOPATH-based multi-species model

Break-up into data preparation working groups

Working Group A preparation of biological and economic input data for

Gordon-Schaefer global composite model

Working Group B - preparation of biological and economic input data for

BEAM 5

Working Group C - preparation of biological and economic input data for

ECOPATH

Friday, 2 June

9.00

Working groups (continuing)

13.30

Plenary presentation by data preparation working groups on their findings

16.00

Modelling working groups

Gordon-Schaefer modelling group

BEAM 5 - modelling group

ECOPATH modelling group

86

Saturday, 3 June (half day)

Modelling working groups (continuing)

Sunday, 4 June (free)
Monday, 5 June

Modelling working groups (continuing)

Tuesday, 6 June

9.00

Modelling working groups (continuing)

13.00

Plenary presentation by modelling working groups on their findings and

discussion

16.00

Modelling working groups (continuing)

Wednesday, 7 June

9.00

Preparation of draft report of modelling results

Thursday, 8 June

9.00

Preparation of draft report of modelling results (continuing)

13.00

Plenary discussion of draft report. Preparation of draft report of modelling

results.

16.00

Amendment of draft report

87

APPENDIX E
AGENDA POLICY DIALOGUE MEETING
Management of the Demersal Fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand
9 June 200012

9.00

Opening (Dr Oopatham Pawaputanon, Deputy Director General, DOF)

Chairman Dr Anant Saraya

9.15

Salient findings of the bio-economic analysis of the demersal fisheries in the

Gulf of Thailand (Dr Somying Piumsombun, Mr Pongpat Boonchuwong, and
Ms Atchara Vibhasiri)

10.30

The management issues of the demersal fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand (Mr
Somsak Chullasorn)

11.30

Fishermens point of view on marine fisheries management issues (Mr Kumpol

Shotepunyo, Executive Committee, Thai Fishermens Association)
Chairman Mr Somsak Chullasorn

13.30

Policy options for the management of the demersal fisheries of the Gulf of
Thailand (Dr Veravat Hongskul)

16.00

Closure (Mr Somsak Chullasorn)

12

The Meeting was conducted in Thai

88

APPENDIX F
ABBREVIATED DESCRIPTION OF BEAM 5
by
Per Sparre
and
Rolf Willmann
INTRODUCTION

BEAM 5 stands for Bio-Economic Analytical Model No. 5. It is a multi-species, multi-fleet

dynamic software implementation of a bio-economic stochastic simulation model, the fifth in
a series of bio-economic models produced by FAO aiming at assisting fisheries researchers
and managers to generate improved advice for fisheries management and policy-making
(Cochet & Gilly, 1990; Coppola, Garcia & Willmann, 1992; Sparre & Willmann, 1993).
Apart from being implemented in Visual Basic with an EXCEL user interface, the key new
features of BEAM 5 as compared to BEAM 4 are as follows:

Non-equilibrium dynamic biological model;

Optional stock-recruitment relationship;

Optional stochastic variability of selected biological parameters;

Dynamic economic model based on the concepts applied in project

analysis;

Inclusion of fisheries management costs and analysis of the impact of

fisheries management and fiscal measures on government budget;

Optional modelling of a buy-back or decommissioning scheme with

compensation payments for boat-owners and fishing crew;

Optional behavioural rules of fishing firms governing fishing effort and

investment;

Optional flexibility of ex-vessel prices in response to changes in fish supply

(i.e. landings).

These new features allow the use of BEAM 5 in the analysis of the bio-economic and socioeconomic effects of the transition process from a poorly managed fishery with excessive fleet
sizes, depleted stocks and low or negative returns on investment to a well managed fishery,
where stocks are recovering and fleet sizes and fishing effort are being adjusted to desirable
levels.
The adjustment process would usually entail certain up-front transition costs for a buy-back or
decommissioning scheme of redundant fishing vessels and compensation for displaced
crewmembers. Such transition costs would often have to be financed by government whether
or not they are subsequently recovered from the fishery participants through taxes, fishing
89

licensing fees or other levies.13 Investments may also be needed to upgrade the fisheries
management capacity at various levels: for improved research; monitoring, control and
surveillance; and educational and organisational activities in the promotion of effective comanagement arrangements between government and fishing communities and fishing
industry.
BEAM 5 uses the net present value (NPV), i.e. the sum of the discounted future stream of net
benefits (i.e. benefits minus costs) to evaluate the desirability of alternative adjustment paths
and management and fiscal measures. A discount rate (or factor) is applied to the benefits and
costs that arise in the future to account for the fact that a Dollar earned (or spent) today is
worth more than a Dollar earned (or spent) in a future year. In the evaluation, a distinction is
made between the financial performance of the fishing firms and the performance of the
fishery from a point of view of the economy as a whole.
The financial analysis estimates how well the fishing industry will be doing over a series of
future years. It is based on estimates of the likely revenues and costs of the fishing firms. The
economic analysis, on the other hand, includes certain costs that are usually not paid for by the
fishing firms and are thus excluded from their financial calculus. These include fisheries
management costs such as research, administration and surveillance and enforcement.14 Another
important difference is that the economic analysis uses shadow prices of inputs whenever there
is a discrepancy between the prices paid by fishing firms or the government and the economy
wide opportunity costs of such inputs. Furthermore, pure transfer payments from one pocket,
i.e. the fishing industry, into another pocket, i.e. the government treasury, such as taxes and
subsidies, are excluded from the economic analysis.
BEAM 5 also allows analysing the impact of the adjustment or transition process on the
government budget. The fishing industry contributes to the government budget through the
payment of taxes (e.g. on fuel), duties (e.g. on imported equipment) and fishing licence fees. On
the other hand, government incurs various expenditures in support of the fishing industry
including fisheries management costs, subsidies and eventual payments under a buy-back
programme for vessel decommissioning and compensation of displaced crew.
BEAM assumes a one-to-one functional relationship between Effort and fishing mortality,
which in its simplest form reads: Fishing Mortality = Q * Effort, where Q is the catchability
coefficient. This is one of the essential links between the biological production function
(based on the traditional Thompson and Bell prediction model) and the economic model. In
the latter, changes in effort result in changes in operating costs. Where changes in fishing
effort cannot be accommodated within a certain fishing capacity limit (expressed as the
product of the maximum number of effort units per vessel multiplied by the number of
vessels), the number of fishing vessels will change and with it fixed harvesting cost. Two
other links between the biological and economic model are also indirectly related to effort.
Firstly, fish handling costs increase or decrease with the amount of fish landings. Secondly,
where prices are responsive to supply, these will increase or decrease with the amount of
landings.
13 There is a strong argument in favour of recuperating from fishery participants transition costs such as vessel
decommissioning payments in order to avoid the principal threat of such buy-back programmes, namely that the
compensatory funds received by vessel owners are used to re-invest into new and more powerful vessels or to
modernize existing vessels (Holland, D., E. Gudmundsson and J. Gates. 1999)
14
It can be argued that where industry benefits from fisheries management, management costs should be
recovered from fishery participants (Arnason, R., R. Hannesson and W.E. Schrank. 2000).

90

THE BIOLOGICAL FRAME OF BEAM 5

The biological model behind BEAM 5 is the traditional model by Thompson and Bell (1934),
which has been discussed in many textbooks on dynamics of fish stocks (e.g. Ricker, 1975,
Beverton & Holt, 1957 and with emphasis on tropical fisheries Sparre & Venema, 1998). The
major part of the biological model behind BEAM 5 is the traditional model, or generalizations
of the traditional model. BEAM 5 extends the traditional models with a spatial model, among
opthers accounting for migration, using the approach of Quinn et al. (1990). All these models
originally were thought of as fish stock assessment models, where parameters were
estimated by methods like Virtual Population Analysis (VPA) or Cohort Analysis (Derzhavin,
1922; Fry, 1949). Lassen and Medley (2001) give a summary of contemporary practical
applications of VPA.
In its present form BEAM 5 focuses on the fisheries component of the exploited marine
ecosystem. It is, however, imagined that BEAM 5 will be added to some general ecosystem
model, such as the ECOPATH suite of models (Christensen et al., 2000; Pauly et al., 2000)
and multi-species VPA (Sparre, 1991). BEAM 5, has certain areas which overlap with that
type of ecosystem models and therefore merging should be possible. Application of fish stock
assessment in tropical waters, however, is problematic (Mahon, 1997). The so-called tuning
of model in BEAM 5 can replace the traditional fish stock assessment to some extent.
The concept of "stock" is rather complicated and there is no consensus among scientists on
how to define it. A full discussion of the stock concept in the context of fisheries management
is given in Begg et al. (1999). The separation of species into stocks is often very problematic.
Even for stocks in non-tropical waters with relatively few species, stock separation is often
difficult. Tropical stocks may in theory be separated by the same methods as used in cold
waters, such as comparison of meristic characters (for example, size and position of fins and
other body parts), number of vertebrae, blood type, parasites, etc. However, these kinds of
data collection may well exceed the capacity of the resources of a developing tropical country.
The collection of data on maturity, spawning grounds and migration routes often may be
within reach of a modest research budget, but usually not for all species of commercial
interest.
In a tropical country, more than 500 species of fish, cephalopods and shrimps may be
included in the list of species of commercial interest that ought to be sampled, in addition
each of the species could consist of a number of stocks. Thus in practice, a sampling
programme is often not able to apply the stock concept rigorously. Therefore, a more
operational concept is required. For management of fisheries the concept of management
unit is more useful. A management unit is a fisheries resource for which it is possible to
make predictions, or, in other words, something for which we can give answers to What-if
questions.
Due to limited personnel and funds, it is usually not possible to collect data for fish stock
assessment from all species (stocks) of commercial interest in the waters of a tropical country,
therefore a limited number of species has to be selected as representatives for the entire
living resources. The selection of representative species must account for both their ecological
and economic importance, that is, large stock size (potential yield) and high price per kg
should be the main criteria to implement biological sampling.

91

According to the agreed international standards (FAO, 1995,1996,1997,1999, ICES, 1998,

UN 1995), reference points are an important concept in implementing a precautionary
approach to fishing. Reference points are closely related to the stock concept (Caddy &
Mahon, 1995, Gislason, 1999). Therefore, fishing mortality rates, biomass, or other measures
should be regarded as indicators of the status of the stock in relation to predefined reference
limits, that should be avoided, or targets, that should be aimed at, in order to achieve the
management objective.
The identification of reference points requires a time series of scientific data, often over many
years. A key concept in some reference points is the Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB), which
is defined as the number of individuals multiplied by the fraction of mature individuals for
each age group, summed over all age groups. Another important concept is the recruit,
which is a juvenile fish entering the exploited part of the stock.
With a few rare examples, the identification of the relationship between parent stock (SSB,
spawning stock biomass) and subsequent recruitment (R) has remained elusive for marine
fishes (Gilbert, 1977, Hilborn, 1997, Myers, 1997). The precautionary approach dictates that
unless it is scientifically demonstrated that there is no relationship between the parent stock
and subsequent recruitment, such a relationship should be assumed to exist, even if the data
are ambiguous. Observations of stock and recruitment show large variation around any SSB/R
curve, so scientists are not in a position to predict future recruitment with any accuracy. They
are only able to tell the probability distribution of the future recruitment and only in cases
where a long time series of SSB/R observations is available.
For the tropical fish stocks it is often not possible to apply the methodology of reference
points, for the simple reason that information on stock and recruitment, as well as fishing
mortalities and other population parameters are not available. The typical information needed
for the calculation of reference points is a long time series of recruitment estimates. This type
of data is usually only available for stocks in temperate waters.
If a data collection programme is to implement international standards for responsible fishing,
it has to choose reference points that can be calculated by means of the data currently
available. The basic data collected is first of all catch rates or CPUE (Catch Per Unit of
Effort), usually expressed in kg per day by fleet, season, fishing grounds and species group.
Thus, possible candidates for reference points could be derived from catch rates. BEAM 5 is
designed as a tool to be used in cases where long time series of data are not available and
where the definition of stocks is problematic or even impossible.
THE TECHNICAL FRAME OF BEAM 5

The technical units of BEAM 5 are the fleets. The definition of fleet is also problematic
(Sparre, 2000). A formal definition is: A fleet is a group of uniform vessels, which have
approximately the same size and the same construction. The vessels should use the same type
of gear and fishing techniques and most often, they share fishing grounds.
The definition is problematic, because, the operations of a vessel may change during the year.
A vessel may, for example, do pair trawling for fish during one season and do single trawling
for shrimp during another season. Some vessels use a combination of gears during a fishing
trip, which may complicate the allocation of vessel to fleets.

92

Fleets may be defined by a combination of gear, engine horsepower (size of vessel), type of
construction and fishing grounds. Horsepower, tonnage and length of vessel are usually
correlated within a group of vessels of the same basic construction type. One practical
problem is that BEAM 5 must adequately cover every major fleet. An example of pragmatic
fleet definitions is given in Holland & Sutinen, 1999.
When the fleets have been defined, we assume (as an approximation to reality) that all vessels
in a fleet are exactly equal and behave in exactly the same way. All members of a fleet are
assumed to have the same fishing power. Two fishing vessels are said to have the same
fishing power if they can catch the same amounts and types of fish under similar conditions.
One may simplify the concepts of fishing power by making it species-specific. In practice,
this ideal definition can rarely be shown to hold. Instead, if two trawlers catch the same
amount of demersal fish during a fishing operation on average, they have the same fishing
power, and if one vessel catches X % more on average than the other vessel it has X % more
fishing power.
A concept closely linked to fishing power is that of a standard vessel. It is often desirable to
express the fishing power relative to some selected vessel type. Usually the most common
vessel type is selected as standard vessel (e.g. bottom trawlers of 15 m length with an
engine of 60 HP and perhaps some other more specific characteristics). Other types of vessels
are then expressed in units of standard vessels. If a vessel has 80% of the fishing power of a
standard vessel, it counts as a 0.8 standard vessel.
THE SPATIAL FRAME OF BEAM 5

BEAM 5 offers the opportunity to account for spatial aspects, in the sense that fish and fleets
can be allocated to a number of areas in a given time period. BEAM 5 uses a simple boxmodel to handle spatial aspects. However, the inclusion of spatial aspects is optional and the
user may choose to consider the sea one homogenous area. If several areas are considered,
this will require a number of additional input parameter, for example, migration
coefficients, the concept of which will be explained below.
The selection of areas or fishing grounds is most often constrained by the data. If logbooks
are not maintained, precise information on where catches were taken is often absent. Often the
practical circumstances dictates that only few areas are considered, sometimes all fishing
areas have to be merged into one single area. A first natural division of the fishing area would
be to use depths for the definition of areas. That may lead to areas like in-shore, (say from
0-20 m depth) and off-shore (say, >20 m depth). Such a division will match both the
distributions of vessels (mainly small vessels in the in-shore area, and large vessels in the offshore area) as well as the distribution of stocks and size groups within a stock. Some areas
may also be defined as nursery areas, that is, areas where juvenile fish are known to be
abundant. Such areas may be closed for fishing to protect the juvenile fish and to avoid
discarding (see example in Pastoors et al., 2000). Other criteria may be used, which depends on
the size and nature of the marine area under study. For example, it will be natural to separate
coral reefs from other areas. Bottom type (sandy, muddy, rocky) combined with depth may also
form the basis for area definition. In large areas, currents and temperature gradients may give
natural definitions of areas. Examples of pragmatic fleet and area definitions are given by
Holland & Sutinen (1999).

93

BEAM 5 however, is not suited for the handling of a large number of areas. It is not anticipated
that BEAM 5 applications will use more than, say, 20 divisions of the total area. BEAM 5 also
is not constructed to deal with a division of the areas into small squares (say, 30 by 30 nm, or
smaller).
For a theoretical discussion of migration in connection with age-based fish stock assessment
the reader is referred to Quinn II et al. (1990). These authors also discuss the estimation of
migration parameters. In principle their model is the approach planned for BEAM 5. Chapter
11 in Sparre & Venema, 1998 discusses the assessment of migratory stocks at a somewhat
lower mathematical level, and it does not deal with the estimation of migration parameters.
THE ECONOMIC FRAME OF BEAM 5

The economic part of BEAM 5 uses the concepts developed for project analysis to evaluate
the financial and economic performance of the fishery during the project horizon (i.e.
simulation life span) given different fisheries management measures, government financial
transfers and assumptions about the investment and operational behaviour of fishing firms.
The financial performance is assessed from the point of view of both the fishing firms and the
government treasury1.
The project horizon is defined as the time span from the initial base year, until the end of the
project. The user of BEAM 5 determines the number of project years. In the choice of project
years, the user would be guided by various factors and assumptions including the time when
management measures are taken and the number of years they take to produce the expected
biological and economic results, the chosen value of the discount rate, the lifetime of fishing
vessels and other factors as appropriate. A short project horizon of say 5 years may fail to reveal
the full benefits of taking management measures such as a reduction of fishing capacity and
effort because the population dynamics of the fish stocks have not yet yielded their full recovery
to the desirable level. A long project horizon of say 20 years would show very little discernible
difference in results to a project horizon of 15 years whenever the discount rate is 15% or
higher.
The evaluation of the financial performance is undertaken from the point of view of both the
fishing firms and the government, while the economic performance is assessed from the
standpoint of the economy as a whole. The principal differences between the two financial
analyses and the economic analysis are as follows:
1) The economic analysis includes certain costs that are usually not paid for by the fishing
firms and are thus excluded from their financial calculations. These include fisheries
management costs such as research, administration and surveillance and enforcement.
These costs lead to a cash outflow from the government budget or treasury. This cash
outflow, however, might not be equal to their true costs to society to be accounted for in
the economic analysis as is further explained below.

The user of BEAM 5 is directed to the specialised literature for detailed explanations of the terms and concepts
applied in project analysis. A well-written and quite accessible text, even for non-economists is provided by
Gittinger (1984). Other standard literature includes Little & Mirrlees (1974), Squire & Tak (1975) and Dasgupta
et al. (1972).

94

2) The economic analysis uses shadow prices as inputs whenever there is a discrepancy
between the prices paid by fishing firms or the government and the economy-wide
opportunity costs of such inputs. For example, where fuel prices are subsidised, thus
lowering fuel expenditures incurred by fishing firms, the economic analysis will be
based on fuel prices net of such subsidies.
3) The financial performance of fishing firms will be affected by the way investments into
fishing craft and gear were financed (i.e. own savings or loans) and by the capital
servicing terms of any loans taken in the past or in future years.
4) The financial performance of the government treasury depends on the cash inflows from
the fishery through taxes, licensing fees, fines etc. and cash outflows for fisheries
management expenditures, subsidies, etc. during the project horizon.
5) The economic analysis applies opportunity costs of capital to reflect the real social cost
of using capital in fisheries rather than elsewhere in the economy. The opportunity cost
concept is only applied to new investments. Past investments are sunk costs to the extent
that they have no alternative economic use outside of fisheries.
6) In the financial analyses, labour costs are based on observed payments made to the
fishing crew or government employees.
7) In the economic analysis, opportunity cost of labour is applied to reflect the real social
cost of employing people in fishing or government rather than elsewhere in the
economy.
8) In the financial analysis, payments made to fishing firms to decommission excess
fishing capacity increase their net cash flows. Some firms may exit the fishery
altogether and may invest decommissioning payments into other economic activities.
If so, these firms would not be further considered in the simulation model of the
fishery.
9) Decommissioning payments (i.e. compensations to fishing firms and to displaced
fishing crews) are considered as transfer payments, i.e. a cash outflow from the
government treasury. These payments are not considered a cost in the economic
analysis.
No adjustments are made to fish prices observed in the market which are assumed to accurately
reflect social values. However, a simple function has been included to model changes in fish
prices as a result of changes in fish landings.
The rules (or algorithms) that attempt to model the behaviour of the skippers or owners of the
fishing vessels are a crucial component of BEAM 5. As all vessels in a fleet are assumed to be
the same (i.e. the fleet is perfectly represented by the average vessel), these rules are fleet and
not vessel specific. There is one exception, however, to the extent that the fleet is structured
according to the age of the vessels. The age takes importance for some of the rules that deal
with vessel decommissioning (buy-back) and with vessel attrition (retirement due to old age, i.e.
wear and tear and technological obsolescence).

95

The rules have been introduced into BEAM 5 for several reasons. First, being a dynamic model,
there is a need to allow additions and reductions in the number of vessels over the simulation
period arising from investments into new vessels, attrition of old vessels, bankruptcy and vessel
decommissioning. Second, to achieve certain realism, there is a need to model the response of
skippers and vessel owners to changes in profitability. This is especially important for
simulating a vessel buy-back scheme for the following reason: the higher returns that the
decommissioning payments, a smaller fleet and a restored stock produce create a powerful
incentive for re-investments when no measures are taken to extract the resource rent and/or have
in place effectively enforced exclusive use or property rights.
THE APPLICATION OF BEAM 5

In a typical BEAM 5 simulation of a fishery, the team of biologists and economists would first
decide jointly on the system dimensions, i.e. the number of fleets, species and areas to model
and the simulation horizon. As a general rule one could say that the model dimensions should
be kept as simple as possible for generating relevant answers to relevant what-if-questions.
The team would then create the base year that is the set of biological, technical and economic
parameters that best represent the current bio-economic condition of the fishery (say some
average over recent years). The base year parameters can be assumed to either remain stable
over the simulation horizon or change in accordance with reasoned predictions about future
developments (e.g. in respect of fish prices, operating and fixed costs, catchability, etc.).
BEAM 5 has been designed in a manner to allow for maximum flexibility as decided by the
users and to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the program EXCEL. For most part,
BEAM 5 only specifies broad cost categories and leaves it up to the user to decide which
specific kinds of costs are subsumed under each of these categories. For this reason, ample
space is provided next to the columns of input parameters where the specific cost items can be
listed, mathematically manipulated and the result directed into the appropriate input cells.
Once all the parameters have been entered, the team can start to perform some simple
deterministic simulations without enabling the behavioural rules. This will allow checking
whether the model can re-produce the current fishery situation in the base-year. It can also
produce an estimate of the Net Present Value for each fleet and all fleets combined under the
assumption that the fishery remains stable over the simulation horizon.
More complex simulations can then be performed (e.g. stochastic simulations; changes in price
and cost parameters during the simulation horizon, enabling of the behavioural rules; etc.) and
assumptions made about the use of various governmental management measures (e.g. buy-back
programme; changes in taxes and licensing fees; closed seasons and areas; fishing capacity and
effort limits).15

For introduction to fisheries bio-economics the reader is referred to, for example, Anderson, 1977, Clark,
1985, Cunningham, et al., 1985, Gilbert, 1988, Gordon, 1954 and Hanneson, 1988, 1993.

15

96

APPENDIX G
REFERENCES
Anderson, L.G., 1977. The economics of fisheries management. Baltimore, Maryland, John
Hopkins University Press. 214 p.
Anderson, L.G., 1994. An economic analysis of highgrading in ITQ fisheries regulation
programs. Marine Resource Economics 9 (3): 209-226.
Anderson, L.G., 1998. A closer look at buybacks: A simulation approach. Proceedings of the
Ninth Biennial Conference of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and
Trade. Troms, Norway, 8-11 July 1998, p. 110-119.
Arnason, R., 1994. On catch discarding in fisheries. Marine Resource Economics 9 (3):189207.
Arnason, R., R. Hannesson and W.E. Schrank, 2000. Costs of fisheries management: the
cases of Iceland, Norway and Newfoundland. Marine Policy. 24: 233-243.
Baranov, F.I., 1918. On the question of the biological
Nauchn.Issled.Ikhtiol.Inst.Izv., 1: 81-128 (in Russian)

basis

of

fisheries.

Beddington, J.R.and R.M. May, 1982. The harvesting of interacting species in a natural
system. Sci. Am. 247 (5): 42-49.
Begg, G.A, K.D. Friedland and J.B. Pearce, 1999. Stock identification and its role in stock
assessment and fisheries management: an overview. Fish. Res. 43 (1-3):1-8.
Bertalanffy, L. von, 1934. Untersuchungen ber die Gesetzlichkeiten des Wachstums. 1.
Allgemeine Grundlagen der Theorie. Roux'Arch.Entwicklungsmech.Org., 131:613-653.
Beverton, R.J.H. and S.J. Holt, 1957. On the dynamics of exploited fish populations. Fish.
Invest. Minist. Agric. Fish. Food G.B. (2 Sea Fish.), 19: 533 p.
Boonvanich, T., 1993. Demersal resources and trash fish. A paper presented on the Seminar
on the Thai Fisheries Improvement, Ao Kungaben Study and Development, Chanta Buri
Province, 20-22 August 1993, 13 pp.
Boonyubol, M. and S. Pramokchutima, 1982. Trawl fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand. A
paper submitted to the second National Seminar on Marine Science, Bangsan, 8-11
September 1982, 7 pp. (also 1984, ICLARM Trans. 4, 12p.)
Caddy, J.F. and R Mahon, 1995. Reference points for fisheries management. FAO Fish.
Tech. Pap. 347, 83 p.
Christensen, V., 1998. Fishery-induced changes in a marine ecosystem: insight from models
of the Gulf of Thailand. Journal of Fish Biology 53 (Suppl. A): 128-149
Christensen, V, C.J. Walters and D. Pauly, 2000. ECOPATH with ECOSIM: a User's
Guide, October 2000 Edition. Vancouver, Fisheries Centre, University of British
Columbia, and Penang, ICLARM. 130 p.

97

Chullasorn, S., 1998. Status of pelagic fisheries and resources in the Gulf of Thailand.
Technical Report No. 1/1998, Mar. Fish. Div., DOF, 82 pp.
Clark, C. W., 1985. Bio-economic modelling and fisheries management. New York, Wiley
Interscience, 291p.
Cochet, Y y B. Gilly, 1990. Logiciels pour l'analyse bio-economique des pcheries. BEAM 3:
Simulation bio-economique analytique des pcheries de crevettes tropicales avec
recrutement fixe ou alatoire. FAO Doc. Tech. Pches, 310.2, 57 p.
Coppola, S.R, S.M. Garcia and R. Willmann, 1992. Software for bio-economic analysis of
fisheries: BEAM 1 and BEAM 2: Simple bio-economic simulation models for
sequential fisheries on tropical shrimp using age groups or commercial categories. FAO.
Computerized.Information.Series (Fisheries), No. 1. Rome, FAO, 61 p.
Cunningham, S., M.R. Dunn and D. Whitmarch, 1985. Fisheries economics: An
introduction. Mansell Publishing Limited, 372 p.
Cushing, D.H., 1973. Production in the Indian Ocean and transfer from the primary to
secondary level. pp. 457-486. In: B. Zeitzschel (ed.) The biology of the Indian Ocean.
Berlin, Springer-Verlag.
Dasgupta P., A. Sen and S. Marglin, 1972. Guidelines for project evaluation. Vienna,
UNIDO.
Demersal Fish Working Group, 1995. The demersal trawl fishery in the Gulf of Thailand:
Advisory Report. Thailand/FAO/DANIDA, 3rd Workshop on Fishery Research
Planning in the Gulf of Thailand, Chiangrai, 23 January to 3 February 1995. 6 pp. (see
FAO/DANIDA 1996)
Department of Fisheries of Thailand, 1971-1996. Fisheries statistics of Thailand. Fisheries
Statistics and Information Technology Sub-Division, Fisheries Economics Division,
DOF. (Annual publication, 1971-1996)
Department of Fisheries of Thailand, 1971-1996. Fishing vessels statistics Fisheries
Statistics and Information Technology Sub-Division, Fisheries Economics Division,
Department of Fisheries of Thailand. (Annual publication, 1971-1996)
Department of Fisheries of Thailand, 1997. The important notifications of Agriculture and
Co-operatives regarding Thailands fisheries, Division of Law and Treaties, Department
of Fisheries of Thailand, September 1997, 36pp. (in Thai).
Department of Fisheries of Thailand, 1999. Proceedings of the Third Thai Marine Fisheries
Direction Seminar. 21-23 April 1999, held by the Department of Fisheries in
corporation with the Fisheries Society of Thailand and the Fish Marketing Organization,
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.
Department of Meteorology of Thailand, 1995. Eastern South Meteorological Center,
monthly rainfall record of the year 1995. (in Thai).
Derzhavin, A.N., 1922. The stellate sturgeon (Acipenser stellatus Pallas), a biological sketch.
Byulleten' Bakinskoi Ikhtiologicheskoi Stantsii 1: 1-393 (In Russian)

98

Eiamsa-ard, M. and S. Amornchairojkul, 1997. The marine fisheries of Thailand, with

emphasis on the Gulf of Thailand trawl fishery. pp. 85-95. In: Silvestre, G. and D. Pauly
(eds). Status and management of tropical coastal fisheries in Asia. ICLARM Conf. Proc.
53: 208pp.
Eiamsa-ard, M., D. Dhamniyom and S. Pramokchutima, 1977. Catches analysis of the
otter board trawling in the Gulf of Thailand. Demersal Fish Section, Technical Paper
No. 1/1977, Mar. Fish. Div., 21 pp.
FAO, 1995. Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. Rome, FAO, 41 p.
FAO, 1996a. Precautionary approach to capture fisheries and species introductions.
Elaborated by the technical consultation on the precautionary approach to capture
fisheries (including species introductions). Lysekil, Sweden, 6-13 June 1995. FAO
Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. No.2 Rome, FAO. 54p.
FAO, 1996b. Precautionary approach to fisheries. Part 2: Scientific papers. Prepared for the
technical consultation on the precautionary approach to capture fisheries (including
species introductions). Lysekil, Sweden, 6-13 June 1995. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 350,
210p.
FAO, 1997. Fisheries management. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, No.
4, Rome, FAO, 82 p.
FAO, 1999. Guidelines for the routine collection of capture fishery data. Prepared at the
FAO/DANIDA Expert Consultation. Bangkok, Thailand, 18-30 May 1998. FAO Fish.
Tech. Pap. 382. 113p.
FAO/DANIDA, 1996. Scientific and advisory reports of the working group on the demersal
trawl fishery in the Gulf of Thailand. In: Report on the third
THAILAND/FAO/DANIDA workshop on fishery research planning, held at Chiang
Rai, Thailand. 23 January to 3 February 1995. Denmark Funds-in-Trust. Rome, FAO,
FI: GCP/INT/575/DEN. Report on Activity No. 12.
FAO/ICLARM, 1993. FiSAT Version 1.10 Stock Assessment Software Project. ICLARM,
Manila, Philippines.
Fisheries Economic Division, Thailand, 1986-1997. The Marine Fisheries Statistic Based on
the Sample Survey. Fisheries Economic Division. Department of Fisheries. Ministry of
Agriculture and Cooperatives.
Froese, R. and D. Pauly, 2000. (eds). Fishbase 2000. Concepts, design and data sources. Los
Baos, Philippines. ICLARM, 344 p and http://www.ecopath.org
Fry, F.E.J., 1949. Statistics of a lake trout fishery. Biometrics 5: 27-67
Gayanilo, F.C. Jr. and D. Pauly (eds.), 1997. FAO-ICLARM stock assessment tools.
(FISAT): Reference manual. FAO Computerised Information Series (Fisheries). No. 8.
FAO Rome. 262 p.

99

Gayanilo, F.C, Jr., P. Sparre and D. Pauly, 1995. The FAO-ICLARM stock assessment
Tools (FISAT). User's Guide. FAO Computerised Information Series (Fisheries). No.8.
Rome, FAO, 126 p.
Gilbert, D.J., 1977. Towards a new
Can.J.Fish.Aquat.Sci. 54: 969-977.

recruitment

paradigm

for

fish

stocks.

Gilbert, D.J., 1988. Use of simple age-structured bio-economic model to estimate optimal
long-run surpluses. Marine Resource Economics (5): 23-42.
Gislason, H., 1999. Single and multispecies reference points for Baltic fish stocks. ICES
Journal of Marine Science 56: 571-583.
Gittinger. J.P , 1982. Economic analysis of agricultural projects. Second Edition. The
Economic Development Institute of the World Bank. Baltimore and London, The John
Hopkins University Press. 505p.
Gordon, S. H., 1954. Economic theory of a common-property resource: The Fishery. Journal
of Political Economy (62): 124-142.
Hanneson, R., 1988. Optimum fishing effort and economic rent: A case study of Cyprus.
FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. (299), 57p
Hanneson, R., 1993. Bioeconomic analysis of fisheries. Fishing News Books & FAO.
Blackwell scientific Publications, Ltd. 138 p.
Hilborn, R., 1997. Comment: Recruitment paradigms for fish stocks. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.
Sci. 54: 984-985.
Holland, D., E. Gudmundsson and J. Gates, 1999. Do fishing vessel buyback programs
work: A survey of the evidence. Marine Policy 23 (1): 47-69.
Holland D.S. and J.G. Sutinen, 1999. An empirical model of fleet dynamics in New
England trawl fisheries. Can J. Fish. Sci. 56: 253-264.
Hovgrd, H and H. Lassen, 2000. Manual on estimation of selectivity for gillnet and
longline gears in abundance surveys. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 397, 84p.
Hoydal, K., C.J. Rrvig and P. Sparre, 1982. Estimation of effective mesh sizes and their
utilization in assessment. Dana, 2: 69-95.
ICES, 1998. Report of the study group on the precautionary approach to fisheries
management. ICES CM 1998/ACFM:10.
Intong, S., 1977. Fishery biology of Nemipterus hexodon in the inner Gulf, June 1968 to
February 1969. Demersal Fish Group, Mar. Fish. Dev. Cent. Technical Paper No.
5/1977, 32 pp. (in Thai).
Intong, S., 1980. Stomach content in Lutjanus malabaricus (Scheider) in the Gulf of
Thailand, 1978. Demersal Fish Group, Mar. Fish. Dev. Cent. Technical Paper No.
10/1980, 25 pp. (in Thai).

100

Intong, S., 1982. Stomach content in Saurida elongata (Temminck & Schlegel) in Prachaub
to Surat Thani Provinces, 1981. Demersal Fish Group, Mar. Fish. Dev. Cent. Technical
Paper No. 3/1982, 25 pp. (in Thai).
Isarankura, A.P., 1972. Present status of trawl fisheries resources in the Gulf of Thailand
and the management program. Proc. Indo-Pacific Fish. Coun., 14(2): 105-114.
Isarankura, A.P. and G. Khlmorgen, 1966. Demersal fish resources of South East Asia.
IPFC 13th Session document, IPFC/C68/SYM 6.
Kongprom, A., P. Khaemakorn, M. Eiamsa-ard and M. Supongpan, 1999. The status of
demersal fishery resources of the Gulf of Thailand (Paper submitted to the
ICLARM/ADB, ADB-RETA 5766, Sustainable Management of Coastal Fish Stocks in
Asia Project).
Lassen, H. and P. Medley, 2001. Virtual Population Analysis - A practical manual for stock
assessment. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 400: 129p. Includes a CD Rom containg additional
examples and exercises.
Little, I.M.D. and J.A. Mirrlees, 1974. Project appraisal and planning for developing
countries. New York, Basic Books.
Lursinsap, A., 1978. Primary production of the Gulf of Thailand. Marine Fishery
Environment Group, Mar. Fish. Dev. Cent. Technical Paper, 23 pp. (in Thai).
Lursinsap, A., 1980. Primary production and chlorophyll analysis in the eastern coast of the
Gulf of Thailand. Marine Fishery Environment Group, Mar. Fish. Dev. Cent. Technical
Paper, 12 pp. (in Thai).
Lursinsap, A., 1982. Primary production, potential yield and chlorophyll analysis in the
southern coast of the Gulf of Thailand (Nakorn Sri Thammarat to Narathiwas). Marine
Fishery Environment Group, Mar. Fish. Dev. Cent. Technical Paper, 11 pp. (in Thai).
Lursinsap, A. and P. Taocharlee, 1989. The estimation of potential yield using primary
production in the coastal areas of the Gulf of Thailand at the distance 3 km from
shoreline. Marine Fishery Environment Group, Mar. Fish. Dev. Cent. Technical Paper,
11 pp. (in Thai).
MacLennan, C.N. (ed.), 1992. Fishing gear selectivity. Fish.Res., Special issue. 13(3): 201352.
Mahon, R., 1997. Does fisheries science serve the needs of managers of small stocks in
developing countries? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54: 2207-2213.
Manly, 1998. Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in biology. Second
edition. Texts in statistical sciences. C R C Press LLC. 400p.
May, R.M., J.R. Beddington, C.W. Clark, S.J. Holt, R.M. Laws, 1979. Management of
multispecies fisheries. Science (Wash.) 205 (4403): 267-277.
McDorman, T., 2000. Final report on legal advice to Thailand. FAO/FISHCODE
GCP/INT/648/NOR Field Report C-4 (En) Rome, FAO, 174p.

101

Meaden and T. Do Chi, 1996. Geographical Information System: Application to marine

fisheries. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 356, 335 p.
Musikasung, W.; S. Vibunpant; V. Chusuwan and K. Chudchai, 1995. Study on water
quality of shrimp farm effluence at Ranod, Songkhla Province. Technical Report No.
1/1995. Southern Marine Fisheries Development Center, 1995, 13 pp. (in Thai).
Myers, R.A., 1997. Comment and reanalysis: Paradigms for recruitment studies.
Can.J.Fish.Aquat.Sci. 54: 978-981.
Office of National Environment Board of Thailand, 1991. Water quality standard for
Thailand, Water Quality Section, Environmental Standard Division, Office of National
Environmental Board (in Thai).
Palomares, M.L.D. and D. Pauly, 1989. A multiple regression model for predicting the food
consumption of marine fish populations. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwat. Res. 40:259-273.
Panayotou, T. and S. Jetanavanich, 1987. The economics and management of Thai marine
fisheries. ICLARM Stud. Rev. 14: 82p.
Pastoors, M.A., A.D. Rijnsdorp and F.A. van Beek, 2000. Effects of a partially closed area
in the North Sea (Plaice box) on stock development of plaice. ICES Journal of
Marine Science, 57: 1014-1022.
Pauly, D. 1979. Theory and management of tropical multispecies stocks: a review with
emphasis on the southeast Asian demersal fisheries. ICLARM Stud. Rev. 1: 35p.
Pauly, D., 1980. On the interrelationships between natural mortality, growth parameters and
mean environmental temperature in 175 fish stocks. J.Cons.CIEM, 39(2): 175-192.
Pauly, D., V. Christensen, and C.J. Walters, 2000. ECOPATH, ECOSIM and ECOSPACE
as tools for evaluating ecosystem impact of fisheries. ICES J. of Marine Science 57:
697-706.
Quinn, T.J.II, R.B. Deriso and P.R. Neal, 1990. Migratory Catch-Age Analysis. Can. J.
Fish. Aquat. Sci. (47): 2315-2327.
Reiger, H.A., J.A. Holmes and D. Pauly, 1990. Influence of temperature changes on aquatic
ecosystem: an interpretation of empirical data. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 119: 374-389.
Ricker, W.E., 1954. Stock and recruitment. J. Fish .Res .Board Can., 11: 559-623
Ricker, W.E., 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish
populations. Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can., (191): 382 p.
Ritragsa, S., 1974. Result of the studies on the status of demersal fish resources in the Gulf of
Thailand from trawling surveys 1963-1972. Mar. Fish. Lab., Department of Fisheries,
40 pp. (in Thai).
Ritragsa, S., D. Dhamniyom and S. Sitthichaikasem, 1968. An analysis of demersal fish
catches taken from the otter board trawling survey in the Gulf of Thailand, 1966. Mar.
Fish. Lab., Department of Fisheries. Contribution No. 11, May 1968. (in Thai).

102

Seijo, J.C., O. Defeo and S. Salas, 1998. Fisheries bioeconomics. Theory, modelling and
management. FAO Fish Tech. Pap. 368. (also available in Spanish).
Sokal, R.R. and F.J. Rohlf, 1981. Biometry. The principles and practice of statistics in
biological research. San Francisco, California, Freeman and Company, 2nd ed.
Songkhla Provincial Office, 1998. The notification of Songkhla Province, July 28, 1999, 1p.
(in Thai).
Sparre, P., 1991. Introduction to Multispecies Virtual Population Analysis. Rapp.- P.-v.
Cons.int.Explor.Mer.
Sparre, P., 2000. Manual on sample-based data collection for fisheries assessment. Examples
from Viet Nam. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 398, 171p.
Sparre, P. and S.C. Venema, 1998. Introduction to tropical fish stock assessment. Part 1
Manual. FAO.Fish.Tech.Pap. 306/1, Rev.2, 407p.
Sparre, P and R. Willmann, 1993. Software for bio-economic analysis of fisheries. BEAM 4
manual. Analytical bio-economic simulation of space-structured multi-species and
multi-fleet fisheries. FAO Computerized Information Series (fisheries), No. 3. Rome,
FAO. Vol.1: Description of Model, 186p.; Vol.2: User's manual, 46 p.
Sparre P. and R. Willmann, (in press). BEAM 5 - A multi-species, multi-fleet dynamic
software implementation of a bio-economic stochastic simulation model. FAO. Rome.
Squire L. and H. Tak, 1975. Economic analysis of projects. Baltimore and London. John
Hopkins.
Sribyatta, P., 1996. Stomach contents analysis of Encrasicholina heteroloba (Ruppell, 1837)
in the western Gulf of Thailand. Marine Fishery Environment Group, BKK. Mar. Fish.
Dev. Cent. Technical Paper No. 3/1996, 18 pp. (in Thai).
Supongpan, M., 1988. Assessment of Indian squid (Loligo duvauceli) and metre squid
(Loligo chinensis) in the Gulf of Thailand, pp.25-41 In: S.C. Venema, J.M. Christensen
and D. Pauly (eds). Contributions to tropical fisheries biology. Papers by the
participants of FAO/DANIDA follow-up training courses on fish stock assessment in
the tropics. Hirtshals, Denmark, 5-30 May 1986, and Manila, 12 January-6 February
1987. FAO Fish. Rep. 389: 519p.
Supongpan, M., 1993. Cephalopod resources in the Gulf of Thailand. A paper presented on
the Seminar on the Thai Fisheries Improvement, Ao Kungaben Study and Development,
Chanta Buri Province, 20-22 August 1993, 45 pp.
Supongpan, M., 1996. Marine capture fisheries of Thailand. Thai Fisheries Gazette 49 (2):
154-162.
Supongpan, M and W. Suwanrumpa, 1997. The Marine Environment and Fisheries in the
Gulf of Thailand (Paper presented in the Workshop and Technical Meetings on the
Feasibility study for the Definition of a Decision Support System for Coastal Areas
Management in Thailand held by Space Applications Institute, European Commission
Joint Research incorporated with the DOF and TDRI, 11-14 November 1997, Bangkok.

103

Suvapepun, S., 1991. Long-term ecological changes in the Gulf of Thailand. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 23: 213-217
Suwanrumpha, W., 1983. Zooplankton in the western Gulf of Thailand I. The relationship
between the relative abundance of food items in the diet of Secutor ruconius, Secutor
insidiator and the standing stock of zooplankton from simultaneous plankton tows.
Marine Fishery Environment Group, Mar. Fish. Dev. Cent. Technical Paper No.
25/1983, 34 pp.
Suwanrumpha, W., 1995. Stomach contents of Rastrelliger brachysoma collected from the
Gulf of Thailand during May 1987 to April 1988. Marine Fishery Environment Group,
Mar. Fish. Dev. Cent. Technical Paper No. 3/1995, 34 pp.
Thompson, W.F. and F.H. Bell, 1934. Biological statistics of the Pacific halibut fishery. 2.
Effect of changes in intensity upon total yield and yield per unit of gear. Rep. Int. Fish.
(Pacific Halibut) Comm., (8): 49 p.
Tiews, K., 1962. Experimental trawl fishing in the Gulf of Thailand and its results regarding
the possibilities of trawl fisheries development in Thailand. Verff. Inst. Kst.
Binnenfisch (25): 53 pp.
Tiews, K. 1965. Bottom fish resources investigations in the Gulf of Thailand and an outlook
on further possibilities to develop the marine fisheries in Southeast Asia. Arch.
Fischereiwiss 16 (1): 67-108.
UN, 1995. Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1992 relating to the conservation
and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. United
Nations Conference on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. Sixth
session. New York, 24 July-4 August 1995.
Vibhasiri, A., 1987. An assessment of Jinga shrimp, Metapenaeus affinis (Penaeidae) in Ban
Don Bay, Gulf of Thailand. Technical Paper No. 4/1987. Stock Assessment Section,
MFRD, DOF, Thailand, 35 pp.
Vibunpant and Sudchai, 1999. Marine environmental study in the southern Gulf of
Thailand. Southern Marine Fisheries Development Center.
Vibunpant et al., 2000. No details available.
Willmann, R., 1996. A value-based individual transferable quota scheme - a preliminary
examination of its suitability as a fisheries management technique. Paper prepared for
the 8th Biennial Conference of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and
Trade, Marrakech, Morocco, 5-8 July 1996.
Yamashita, Y., N. Piumthipmanus and K. Mochizuki, 1987. Gut contents analysis of
fishes sampled from the Gulf of Thailand. In: Kawaguchi, K (eds.). Studies on the
mechanism of marine productivity in the shallow waters around the South China Sea
with special reference to the Gulf of Thailand. Thai-Japanese Cooperative Study,
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Japan, March 1987, 98 pp.

104

INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
GCP/INT/648/NOR.10

FI Registry (2)
FI Library (2)
Ziesler (4, for Norway)
Nomura, FI
Karnicki, FIP
Garcia, FIR
Valdimarsson, FII
Wijkstrm, FIPP
Satia, FIPL
Grainger, FIDI
Csirke, FIRM
Willmann, FIPP
Everett, FIPP
Greboval, FIPP
Smith, FIIT
Thiele, FIIT
Martosubroto, FIRM
Cochrane, FIRM
Van Houtte, LEG
RAPA, Bangkok
Hongskul, RAPA
Library, RAPA
Hanek, FISHCODE
Venema, FISHCODE
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION

DOF, Thailand (15)

ICLARM, Penang (5)
Christensen, ICLARM (Vancouver)
Sparre, DIFRES, Denmark
Workshop Participants and Observers(53)
Print 150 copies

105